Choosing the best legal papers template can be a struggle. Naturally, there are a variety of themes accessible on the Internet, but how can you discover the legal type you need? Use the US Legal Forms web site. The service provides a large number of themes, such as the Massachusetts Jury Instruction - 1.2.3 Sex Discrimination Quid Pro Quo Violation, that you can use for business and private demands. Each of the kinds are checked by specialists and fulfill federal and state specifications.
If you are currently signed up, log in to your accounts and then click the Obtain key to obtain the Massachusetts Jury Instruction - 1.2.3 Sex Discrimination Quid Pro Quo Violation. Utilize your accounts to search from the legal kinds you have bought previously. Check out the My Forms tab of your own accounts and acquire one more backup of the papers you need.
If you are a brand new customer of US Legal Forms, listed below are simple directions that you can comply with:
US Legal Forms may be the largest local library of legal kinds that you can find a variety of papers themes. Use the company to obtain skillfully-manufactured papers that comply with express specifications.
In business and legal contexts, quid pro quo conveys that a good or service has been exchanged for something of equal value. It has been used in politics to describe an unethical practice of "I'll do something for you, if you do something for me," but are allowable if bribery or malfeasance does not occur through it.
Quid Pro Quo describes an agreement between two or more parties in which there is a reciprocal exchange of goods and services. Although some quid pro quos have illegal implications such as bribery and extortion, not all do.
Examples of this type of harassment can include: A supervisor requesting sexual favors as a condition for hiring, promotion, advancement, or opportunities. A manager threatening to terminate, transfer, demote, or otherwise adversely affect an employee's work life if sexual favors are not given or continued.
Specific intent means that ?a defendant must not only have consciously intended to take certain actions, but that he also consciously intended certain consequences.? Commonwealth v. Gunter, 427 Mass. 259, 269, 692 N.E.2d 515, 523 (1998).