Workplace fraternization policies: Four "whos" and a "why"

An intimate look.

No-fraternization policies generally prohibit employees with certain family or personal relationships from being in a direct or indirect reporting relationship.

A man and woman dressed in business attire are kneeling on separate office desks, leaning toward each other as if about to kiss, with computer monitors between them. The scene takes place in a modern office setting, highlighting a romantic or flirtatious moment at work.

Let’s say Mel is VP of Sales. His significant other, Melanie, is one of three sales managers, all reporting to Mel. Any issues here? Do I even have to ask?

  • Favoritism (“Melanie can do no wrong. Linus and Lucy, why can’t you be more like Melanie?”)
  • Spillover of personal issues into the workplace (“Sorry I bit your head off, Linus. Mel and I had an argument this morning, and I've been in a bad mood ever since.”)
  • Spillover of dysfunctional relationship issues into the working relationship (Mel or Melanie is an abusive partner)
  • Anger or resentment from Melanie when Mel treats Melanie exactly the same way he treats his other managers (“But, Snookums, I’m special!”)
  • Anger or resentment from Mel when Melanie offers constructive suggestions to Mel about work (“Boo, how dare you question my authority?”)
  • Concerns from the other managers that Mel and Melanie may be talking about the managers’ stuff -- including job performance and personnel issues -- during their personal time together (“Long day, Babe. Confidentially, I may have to merge Linus’s territory with Lucy’s and let one of them go. What do you want to do for dinner?”)
  • Sexual harassment claims (more about this below)
  • Etc.

And that's why employers have no-fraternization policies.

Similar issues can arise from other relationships – ever heard about how the nepo baby got fast-tracked to Senior Executive VP even though he’s a complete moron? – but in my experience the most complicated issues arise from co-workers who are in consensual relationships and not married.

A white ceramic mug sits on a wooden office desk, featuring a lipstick kiss mark in red on the side facing forward. The sunlight casts soft shadows, suggesting a quiet, personal moment in a workplace setting.

FOUR FRATERNIZATION POLICY "WHOS"

No. 1: To whom does it apply? A typical no-fraternization policy will identify the personal relationships to which it applies – usually spouses, live-ins, significant others, parents/children, siblings, grands, maybe aunts and uncles, and in-laws. It’s also a good idea to include a catch-all that gives the employer discretion to apply the policy to other personal relationships because the possibilities are endless.

No. 2: Who spills the beans? After defining the relationships to which it applies, the policy should require both parties to disclose the relationship to the employer. For example, maybe Mel and Melanie were just a regular boss-and-employee for five years, and then the spark got lit. They started dating, then they became exclusive, and then they moved in together. They might not have been required to disclose the relationship immediately, but at some point the relationship became serious enough that they should have disclosed it.

Another possibility is that Mel and Melanie had been in a relationship for a long time, but Mel worked somewhere else. Then Mel was recruited by Melanie's employer and got hired as Melanie's boss. Before or at the point of hire, Mel and Melanie should have disclosed their personal relationship.

No. 3: Who hits the road? Once the relationship is disclosed, the parties to the relationship should be required to decide between themselves which one is going to hit the road. That doesn’t necessarily mean that either party has to resign. If the company has an appropriate vacancy with a different reporting relationship, the departing partner may be able to transfer.

Why doesn't the employer decide who will go? This is mainly because (at least in the old days), the woman was expected to quit or transfer, which could give rise to a sex discrimination claim if the employer made that decision. I’m not sure this happens anymore, but it is still prudent from a legal standpoint for the employer to let the duo decide.

No. 4: Who gets in trouble for not disclosing? If they don't disclose the relationship, that should be ground to impose disciplinary action, “up to and including discharge,” on both partners. But reasonable extenuating circumstances should be taken into account. For example, your idea of a serious relationship might be a second date. But maybe Mel and Melanie thought it wasn’t serious until they became exclusive (and they did disclose their relationship at that point). Since their view is reasonable, and since they did try to comply, you can cut them a little slack.

AND THE "WHY"

Why is sexual harassment a risk, since we are talking about consensual relationships? Good question. The most common sexual harassment risk arises if Mel and Melanie break up. Let’s say Melanie ends it, and Mel is devastated. As most heartbroken people do, Mel starts calling Melanie at all hours, begging her to reconsider, crying, sending her flowers, and coming to her apartment to try to talk her into getting back together.

Black and white comic-style illustration of a person with dramatic, exaggerated tears streaming down their face, eyes squeezed shut, and mouth wide open in a scream. The clenched fist and intense yellow burst in the background heighten the sense of emotional outburst or despair.

But Melanie doesn’t change her mind. Now Mel starts getting angry, and he may even express to her some veiled -- or not-so-veiled -- threats if she doesn't give them another chance.

Remember that Mel is Melanie’s boss. And now he’s creating a hostile work environment if not engaging in quid pro quo harassment. His overtures are no longer “welcome” to Melanie.

Another breakup-related scenario is not unusual. Mel decides to break up, and to get even Melanie falsely accuses him of sexual harassment, "framing" him with evidence based on their consensual relationship. (For this reason, employers should require employees who disclose a consensual relationship to sign a relationship agreement in which they acknowledge their relationship and that it is consensual.)

A third scenario is less common, but it does occur. Let’s say Mel and Melanie are together, and everything is wonderful. And they are quite open about expressing that in the workplace, if you know what I mean and I think you do. Then other employees could have valid claims for hostile work environment based on Mel and Melanie’s PDAs*.

*Public Displays of Affection, not Personal Digital Assistants.

So employers, if you don't already have a no-fraternization policy, adopt one. (This can wait until after Labor Day.)   

I hope you all have a great long weekend, and in case you’re interested, here’s a link to a Labor Day quiz I posted in 2022. Enjoy! Again!

  • Smiling older woman with short gray hair and glasses, wearing a dark gray cardigan over a black top and a beaded necklace, with arms confidently crossed. She has a warm, approachable demeanor and a professional presence against a transparent background.
    Of Counsel & Chief Legal Editor

    Robin also conducts internal investigations and delivers training for HR professionals, managers, and employees on topics such as harassment prevention, disability accommodation, and leave management.

    Robin is editor in chief ...

This is Constangy’s flagship law blog, founded in 2010 by Robin Shea, who is chief legal editor and a regular contributor. This nationally recognized blog also features posts from other Constangy attorneys in the areas of immigration, labor relations, and sports law, keeping HR professionals and employers informed about the latest legal trends.

Search

Get Updates By Email

Subscribe

Archives

Legal Influencer Lexology Badge ABA Web 100 Badge
Jump to Page

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When using this website, Constangy and certain third parties may collect and use cookies or similar technologies to enhance your experience. These technologies may collect information about your device, activity on our website, and preferences. Some cookies are essential to site functionality, while others help us analyze performance and usage trends to improve our content and features.

Please note that if you return to this website from a different browser or device, you may need to reselect your cookie preferences.

For more information about our privacy practices, including your rights and choices, please see our Privacy Policy. 

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Strictly Necessary Cookies are essential for the website to function, and cannot be turned off. We use this type of cookie for purposes such as security, network management, and accessibility. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but if you do so, some parts of the site will not work. 

Functionality Cookies

Always Active

Functionality Cookies are used to enhance the functionality and personalization of this website. These cookies support features like embedded content (such as video or audio), keyword search highlighting, and remembering your preferences across pages—for example, your cookie choices or form inputs during submission.

Some of these cookies are managed by third-party service providers whose features are embedded on our site. These cookies do not store personal information and are necessary for certain site features to work properly.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek