HED = Workplace romance: Deflect Cupid’s arrows before it’s too late
By Julie A Moore, Esquire
Reprinted with permission of the National Institute of Business Management, You and The Law, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 1998
You already know that unwelcome sexual advances by one employee to another can trigger legal trouble. But what about welcome sexual or romantic advances? Should you let employees date each other?
Given the long hours people spend at work and the bonds that can develop, some romances are unavoidable. And such couplings have advantages: They can build company loyalty and make workers happier to spend more time on the job.
But there’s a dark side. Romantic relationships between co-workers that go sour can lead to sexual harassment lawsuits if one person continues to pursue the other. Sometimes they can breed workplace violence for which the employer—again--may be liable.
Such lawsuits come at a steep price. Prepare for the public airing of the sordid details of the parties’ relationship, the personnel histories of co-workers, the harsh examination of your corporate culture, along with the content and applicability of your human-resources policies and practices. Then there’s the staggering cost in both money and employees’ time.
Even when they don’t land a company in court, office relationships can hurt morale and productivity. For instance, employees may resent that a co-worker who dates their supervisor gets special treatment. Or a couple may part amicably but wish to stop working together, requiring a realignment of staff. And if the affair is extramarital, its discovery can bring humiliation and possible ouster from employment.
For these reasons, so-called anti-fraternization and anti-nepotism rules that restrict dating within a workplace can prove useful. That doesn’t mean you should distribute a sweeping edict that prevents dating between co-workers. In an American Management Association poll of 485 managers, less than 1 percent ban workplace dating entirely. Trying to enforce such a blanket rule might force employees to lie about their dating, thus leading to the spread of rumors.
But you should have a reasonable policy in place on how much to regulate employees’ private lives before a real situation erupts, when emotions and politics enter the equation. A fair, evenhanded no-fraternization rule can help you manage these sticky situations more effectively.
To formulate such a policy, you must first decide which relationships, if any, to ban in your workplace. This requires both determining what will constitute "fraternization" (all dating or cohabitation?) and who must follow this policy. Prohibiting all romantic relationships between all employees sounds simple, but it’s extreme. Many employers limit their anti-fraternization rule to those in a direct supervisory-subordinate relationship. Others extend it to situations where an executive could affect someone else’s pay or working conditions.
In weighing where to draw the line, you must balance the risk that you’ll lose or alienate valuable employees against the opportunity to boost morale by eliminating perceived (or actual) favoritism.
Like all policies, anti-fraternization rules are ineffective and even detrimental when not consistently enforced. If you know or suspect that prohibited fraternization is occurring, you must investigate by interviewing the person who was the source of the information, and then the alleged romantic couple. You may then talk to other witnesses.
If you find that the rules have been broken, follow the policy to determine your actions. If workers attempt to conceal a relationship and deny it when confronted, tread carefully. You must maintain the integrity of your policy without intruding too much into their privacy. Taking disciplinary action or requiring a transfer may prove necessary.
While delicate and often difficult, prompt intervention can go a long way toward defusing a potentially explosive problem.
8 Steps to an Effective Anti-Fraternization Policy
- Audit your existing workplace situation and see how interoffice romances are working out and how they have been handled in the past.
- Determine which types of relationships, if any, should be prohibited in your workplace, define "fraternization" under the policy, and specify what actions and disciplinary measures will be taken when the policy is violated.
- Draft a policy specific to your workplace, carefully delineating to whom the policy applies and the scope of it.
- Consider whether any existing romantic relationships should be "grandfathered" in.
- Ensure that the policy does not have the effect of discriminating against women, who may frequently be in the less powerful and lower-paying jobs. Example: If one employee must transfer or leave the company altogether, consider allowing the romantic partners to choose which one will leave.
- Publicize and clearly explain the policy in the employee handbook and periodic memos.
- Apply the policy consistently to avoid claims of discrimination against members in protected categories. Example: Don’t single out married employees by barring adulterous liaisons. While these romances can cause the most turmoil, most states and some localities have marital-status anti-discrimination statutes.
- Periodically reevaluate the policy’s effect on the workplace.
Julie A. Moore, Esquire of Employment Practices Group in North Andover, Massachusetts, specializes in risk-management, workplace training and internal investigations on sexual harassment and other employment issues. She is admitted to practice law in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. She can be reached at jmoore@employmentpg.com or 978-975-0080. |
