Workforce Management Community Center: Legal Forum

Community Center

= Member Only

Forums: Legal Forum

Legal Forum
Discuss employment-law issues such as family leave, overtime, disabilities law, harassment, immigration and termination.

Welcome to the Legal Forum. Before posting, you may want to look through past pages of this Forum to see if your question has been answered. Also, search the Research Center.

Please note that this forum is for workforce-management professionals only, and not for employees.

Workforce Management Community Center Forum Index � � Legal Forum � � Employee fraternization (Answered by EBG)

Author	Employee fraternization (Answered by EBG)
BriaM Joined: Sep 13, 2001 Posts: 4	Posted: 1999-12-22 07:56 Is there an effective way to implement a policy prohibiting fraternization among employees on and off of the job? We have two employees who have exhibited behavior that would indicate they are having a relationship. One is currently married, but separated, and one is divorced. I would like to have a policy that would basically make them choose between each other or their job. I don't want a husband and wife or co-habitants both working for my business. Any suggestions?
hroddball Joined: Sep 13, 2001 Posts: 74	Posted: 1999-12-22 10:16 Tread lightly! I think you are in the middle of a mine field. I have worked for an establishment that had a nepotism policy....so that just encouraged employees to live in "sin" and they let us know it!! We eventually changed our policy. My recommendation is to concentrate on work performance and make business decisions based on that. Do not make them on what you guess they may or may not be doing on their off time. Concentrating on work performance will give you a better chance to consistently apply discipline. So are you seeing declining production from these workers...are tasks not getting completed, etc...I think you get the picture. Good luck.
JimCarabetta Joined: Sep 13, 2001 Posts: 3335	Posted: 1999-12-22 10:28 On the job, yes. Off the job, nope. You can have a no fraternization policy, but there is no way you can limit away-from-work activity without leaving yourself and your business exposed to a variety of complaints. To deny a husband/wife team employment after each had worked for you when they were single, is to make an employment decison based on marital status. Unless there is a bona-fide business related reason for the policy (it's not uncommon in the broadcasting industry for whatever their reasons), unless you can relate the relationship in terms of a measureable negative effect on their performance or your operation, I'd think you'd be pretty much stuck.
EpsteinBecker&Green,P.C. Joined: Sep 13, 2001 Posts: 8461	Posted: 1999-12-23 05:27 Well, actually, I believe that I may have a slightly different view from those already expressed. I do agree that this is an area that can create major issues for an employer. I do not agree that there is nothing you can (or should) do about these issues or problems. Let's be honest, the line between co-employee "dating" and unwelcome sexual harassment is a very close one indeed. The fact remains that when a relationship turns unfriendly, it does affect the workplace and can lead to liability. Employers may wish to consider adopting policies prohibiting dating among supervisors and subordinates. Employers may wish to consider anti-nepotism policies. Employers should also make sure they have a very strong EEO and sexual harassment policy, regularly published to the employees and consistently enforced. While I agree with Jim about the risk that a policy barring employment of those who are married while not barring employment of those "living in sin" (given the fact that people move in and out of relationships so often these days, I think of it more as a "vacation in sin" as opposed to "living" there!), I know of no cases that have actually ruled that way. That is why you might want to consider a no employee dating policy. (Actually, I was thinking about a rule prohibiting employees from dating ANYONE, EVER, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, but I have been told that is an extreme position to take from a litigation avoidance perspective!). Keep in mind that there are a few states that have lawful off-duty conduct statutes (i.e., New York) prohibiting discrimination on the basis of lawful off-duty activities. These statutes may come into play but, again, I know of no case that has actually ruled that way. The long and the short of it is that I think some employers should consider these types of rules in order to prevent liability down the road.
klenore Joined: Sep 13, 2001 Posts: 387	Posted: 1999-12-23 12:54 A few months ago, Workforce had a section dealing with this particular kind of situation. In agreement with the attorney on the sexual harassment issue, you may want to bring both parties in and review your policy in light of a potential problem. In fact, I've read a suggestion from an attorney that the parties write a letter to each other agreeing that the personal relationship will not affect the working relationship and that if the personal relationship ends, they are in agreement that no sexual harassment has occurred. It was pretty strange. The companies I have worked for do not allow for married partners to report to the same supervisor or one report to the other. My husband and I have worked for the same company twice, reporting to different supervisors and with strict guidelines that no confidential information pass between us. It worked very well; we worked at one company in different departments for 7 years until he was promoted to an executive level and his VP "suggested" that I leave the company and I did. We had numerous married employees working for the company and never encountered problems at any level (it was the restaurant business with over 200 locations).
cortez Joined: Sep 21, 2002 Posts: 5	Posted: 2003-08-23 06:27 As a HR professional in local government, I'm concerned about the relationships that sometimes exists between our elected officials and employees. Some call it "Politicking", others call it "Favoritism", but its really micromanaging and very damaging. Employees do not follow internal chain of command and circumvent management to address issues with elected officials. In my short time here, I've seen the effect this has on employees who are not part of the "loop" and seem to suffer as a result of it. What steps can I take to address this situation and educate the organization.
Hatchetman Joined: Sep 13, 2001 Posts: 1609	Posted: 2003-08-23 10:53 Having worked in plocal government HR for many years, the issue has to be addressed by executive and senior management of your agency. If employees have a direct link to a local politician, I don'tk now that you can do anything about it. You can put a policy in place that emplyees SHOULD address any issues or conerns about the agency within the agency in order to give a chance for the agency to address their concerns as soon as possible, but you may be in hot water with your bosses and with whitsleblowing laws if you bar outside contacts. Let your agency head deal with the contacts he or she may get from politicians about the way your agency is operating or even on personal gripes.