Porter

facts are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment harass- ment, however, we leave for another day the question of whether quid-pro-quo liabil- ity attaches when an alleged harasser, who was not in a position to exact reprisals at the time his advances were rejected, is sub- sequently entrusted with and abuses such authority. n3

n3 In order to establish a prima facie case of quid-pro-quo sexual harassment, Porter must show that Wheeler or DeSantis “ex- plicitly or implicitly conditioned a job, a job benefit, or the absence of a job detri- ment, upon [her] acceptance of sexual con- duct.” Heyne v. Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal citation and quota- tion marks omitted).

Slip op. at 13222:

Delete Judge Tallman’s dissent.

The petition for rehearing is otherwise DENIED. See Fed. R. App. P. 40. The suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED. See Fed. R. App. P. 35. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be accepted. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

OPINION

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge:

In May 2000, Lawana Porter filed a complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, against 10146 …