by Stephen J. Cabot, Esq. and Michel Lee,
Esq. of Harvey, Pennington, Herting & Renneisen, L.L.C.
This is the conclusion of MWorld's two-part series on Office
Romance. Click here for Part 1 of the series.
Most office romance problems stem from the sometimes unfortunate
symptoms of excessive ardor or love gone awry. The best way to address
those symptoms is to deal with them directly and individually. That
is why it is important to have a clear, written employee fraternization
policy. The policy should:
State that dating and interpersonal relations that are entirely
welcome, voluntary, and consensual are not prohibited, but that
employees so involved are expected to behave professionally at all
times. Make it clear that displays of affection and conduct or speech
in the workplace that is romantic or sexual is not acceptable. Advise
employees that personal arguments should be left at home. Cogently
and firmly communicate the policy against sex discrimination and
sexual harassment to all personnel, both verbally and in writing.
In setting forth the policy against sexual harassment, describe
unacceptable behaviors in detail:
- Employees must be informed that anyone
who pressures another to unwillingly participate in an intimate
social relationship or who threatens or takes action against another
employee for declining to participate in such a relationship has
violated company policy.
- Note that sexual harassment may involve
individuals of different or the same gender.
- Provide an internal grievance procedure
whereby employees can raise sex discrimination and harassment
complaints without fear of retaliation.
- Once a charge has been made, thoroughly
investigate the matter and, if called for, take prompt responsive
action.
Make one important exception to the fraternization tolerance policy
-- dating or intimate social relationships between individuals who
have a direct reporting work relationship must be proscribed. Supervisor-subordinate
involvements are especially apt to influence people's business judgment.
This type of situation is also far more likely to result in a discrimination
action against the employer. Affairs between supervisors and subordinates
are prone to destabilize the larger work unit involved by raising
resentment among other employees and creating the perception of
preferential treatment.
Note that enforcement can be the unexpected legal trap of anti-fraternization
policies. If enforcement is not consistent, or if it impacts more
negatively on a legally protected class, the employer can be sued
for discrimination.
Conclusion
Employers should devise fraternization policies that:
- Help safeguard against their legal liability
- Maintain professional, productive and
discrimination-free work environments
However, sweeping rules against interpersonal
relationships are ill-advised and, ultimately, ineffectual. Employees
will follow their own hearts (or libidos), irrespective of employer
dictates.
Stephen J. Cabot is chairman of the Employment Law & Labor Relations
Department of the Philadelphia-based national law firm of Harvey,
Pennington, Herting & Renneisen, LTD. He is the author of the bestselling
book Everybody Wins! Michel Lee is an associate in the New York
office.
.
|
