Workplace Romance and Harassment: Legal Insights
North Carolina Association of Municipal Attorneys
2010 Annual Summer Conference
August 5-7, 2010
P
a
t
r
i
c
i
a
L
.
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
L
e
w
i
s
L
L
P
1
4
0
0
C
r
e
s
c
e
n
t
G
r
e
e
n
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
1
5
C
a
r
y
,
N
o
r
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
2
7
5
1
8
9
1
9
-
4
2
4
-
8
6
0
8
p
a
t
r
i
c
i
a
.
h
o
l
l
a
n
d
@
j
a
c
k
s
o
n
l
e
w
i
s
.
c
o
m
2
Patricia L. Holland
Patricia L. Holland
Jackson Lewis LLP
Jackson Lewis LLP
919-424-8608
919-424-8608
patricia.holland@jacksonlewis.com
patricia.holland@jacksonlewis.com
“What’s Harder:
Finding Your Dream Job or Your Dream Mate”
•
Nearly 1/3 of all romances
begin at work
•
Between 6 and 8 million
Americans enter into such
relationships every year . . .
•
and about 50% of the time, the
result is either a long-term
connection or marriage
•
Combining romance and
career: a dangerous mix
1
2
Problems With Harassment
and Employee Dating
Employers Can Protect Themselves
3
Defining Sexual Harassment
4
Defining Sexual Harassment
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
o
f
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
S
e
v
e
r
i
t
y
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
l
y
t
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
i
n
g
H
u
m
i
l
i
a
t
i
n
g
o
r
m
e
r
e
l
y
o
f
f
e
n
s
i
v
e
I
n
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
j
o
b
5
6
Defining Sexual Harassment
T
i
t
l
e
V
I
I
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
r
e
a
c
h
g
e
n
u
i
n
e
b
u
t
i
n
n
o
c
u
o
u
s
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
w
a
y
s
m
e
n
a
n
d
w
o
m
e
n
r
o
u
t
i
n
e
l
y
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
.
.
.
”
(
O
n
c
a
l
e
v
.
S
u
n
d
o
w
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
I
n
c
.
)
7
Defining Sexual Harassment
“
P
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
a
r
a
s
s
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
b
a
s
i
s
o
f
s
e
x
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
a
s
e
x
u
a
l
i
t
y
n
o
r
a
n
d
r
o
g
y
n
y
i
n
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
p
l
a
c
e
.
”
8
Employer Liability for Sexual Harassment
D
i
d
t
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
c
a
r
e
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
a
n
d
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
p
r
o
m
p
t
l
y
a
n
y
s
e
x
u
a
l
l
y
h
a
r
a
s
s
i
n
g
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
?
D
i
d
t
h
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
u
n
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
f
a
i
l
t
o
t
a
k
e
a
d
v
a
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
v
e
o
r
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
?
9
Using Investigation to Establish
Precise Nature of Conduct
10
The Conduct Was Not Severe or Pervasive
V
e
r
b
a
l
b
a
n
t
e
r
f
r
o
m
a
s
o
u
r
e
d
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
E
-
m
a
i
l
s
L
o
v
e
l
e
t
t
e
r
s
S
t
a
r
i
n
g
The Employee Unreasonably Failed to
Utilize the Employer’s Complaint Procedures
U
n
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
R
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
C
a
r
e
11
12
Good Faith Defense
P
u
n
i
t
i
v
e
d
a
m
a
g
e
c
a
n
b
e
a
v
o
i
d
e
d
w
h
e
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
m
a
k
e
g
o
o
d
f
a
i
t
h
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
T
i
t
l
e
V
I
I
.
13
Considerations for Good Faith Defense
U
s
e
r
F
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
P
o
l
i
c
y
T
h
e
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
s
t
h
e
P
o
l
i
c
y
P
r
o
m
p
t
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
14
Considerations for Good Faith Defense
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
t
o
a
l
l
d
a
t
i
n
g
(
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
)
L
o
v
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
C
o
n
f
r
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
w
i
t
h
r
u
m
o
r
s
15
The Harassment Was Not Based On Sex
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
r
e
s
e
n
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
f
a
i
l
e
d
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
?
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
s
e
x
u
a
l
s
p
a
r
k
s
f
l
y
i
n
g
?
O
R
…
The Harassment Was Not Based On Sex
Not all types of sexual favoritism violate Title VII. It is
the Commission’s position that Title VII does not
prohibit isolated instances of preferential treatment
based upon consensual romantic relationships. An
isolated instance of favoritism toward a paramour (or a
spouse, or a friend) may be unfair, but it does not
discriminate against women or men in violation of Title
VII, since both are disadvantaged for reasons other
than their genders.
(
E
E
O
C
P
o
l
i
c
y
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
o
n
S
e
x
u
a
l
F
a
v
o
r
i
t
i
s
m
)
16
Sexual Favoritism OR Sexual Harassment?
DeCintio v. Westchester County Medical
,
807 F.2d 304 (2
nd
Cir. 1986)
Kaminski v. Freight-A-Ranger, Inc.
,
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18858 (2002 ND IL)
Succar v. Dade County School Board
,
229 F.3d 1343 (11
TH
Cir. 2000)
17
The Harassment Was Not Based On Sex
“
…
[
a
]
s
l
o
n
g
a
s
m
e
n
a
n
d
w
o
m
e
n
w
o
r
k
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
,
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
s
e
x
u
a
l
s
p
a
r
k
s
t
o
f
l
y
i
n
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
p
l
a
c
e
w
i
l
l
a
l
w
a
y
s
e
x
i
s
t
.
B
u
t
a
f
t
e
r
a
l
o
n
g
t
i
m
e
s
e
x
u
a
l
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
l
i
k
e
t
h
i
s
o
n
e
g
o
e
s
s
o
u
r
,
i
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
o
n
l
y
t
h
e
u
n
u
s
u
a
l
c
a
s
e
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
e
s
c
a
p
e
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
j
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
.
”
Mosher v. Dollar Tree Stores
,
240 F.3d 662, 668 (7
th
Cir. 2001)
18
Workplace Romance Policies
•
Include a clear statement that
supervisor/subordinate relationships are not
allowed
•
If circumstances make it impossible to transfer
one of the employees involved in the
supervisor/subordinate relationship, appoint an
uninvolved supervisor to handle the
performance and/or compensation review of the
subordinate employee
19
Workplace Romance Policies
•
Apply the policy consistently to all
employees, i.e., to management and staff
alike
•
Train supervisors about the provisions of
the policy and how to constructively deal
with workplace romance issues
•
Draft a policy that is specific to your
particular workplace
20
•
Consider whether any existing
relationships should be grandfathered in
under the new policy
•
Consider the use of Consensual
Relationship Agreements or
“Love Contracts”
21
Workplace Romance Policies
22
Responding When the
Romantic Relationship Resumes
23
Reducing The Risk Of
Sexual Harassment Suits
Summary Judgment When the
Sexual Relationship Goes Sour
24
QUESTIONS?
25
North Carolina Association of Municipal Attorneys
2010 Annual Summer Conference
August 5-7, 2010
P
a
t
r
i
c
i
a
L
.
H
o
l
l
a
n
d
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
L
e
w
i
s
L
L
P
1
4
0
0
C
r
e
s
c
e
n
t
G
r
e
e
n
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
1
5
C
a
r
y
,
N
o
r
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
2
7
5
1
8
9
1
9
-
4
2
4
-
8
6
0
8
p
a
t
r
i
c
i
a
.
h
o
l
l
a
n
d
@
j
a
c
k
s
o
n
l
e
w
i
s
.
c
o
m
Workplace romances can lead to conflicts and harassment issues, affecting morale and productivity. Understanding sexual harassment definitions, employer liability, and ways to protect against such incidents are crucial for creating a safe work environment. Legal expert Patricia L. Holland provides insights on managing co-worker relationships, harassment, and employer responsibilities.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
North Carolina Association of Municipal Attorneys 2010 Annual Summer Conference August 5-7, 2010 Patricia L. Holland Jackson Lewis LLP 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 215 Cary, North Carolina 27518 919-424-8608 patricia.holland@jacksonlewis.com
Crossing the Line: When Co-Worker Romance Turns to Conflict Patricia L. Holland Jackson Lewis LLP 919-424-8608 patricia.holland@jacksonlewis.com 2
Whats Harder: Finding Your Dream Job or Your Dream Mate Nearly 1/3 of all romances begin at work Between 6 and 8 million Americans enter into such relationships every year . . . and about 50% of the time, the result is either a long-term connection or marriage Combining romance and career: a dangerous mix 1
Problems With Harassment and Employee Dating Rumors Drain on morale Sensitive issues High emotions Office rumor mill Gossip 2
Employers Can Protect Themselves Understand what is and is not harassment Creative responses to sensitive issues 3
Defining Sexual Harassment Hostile Work Environment 4
Defining Sexual Harassment Frequency of conduct Severity Physically threatening Humiliating or merely offensive Interferes with ability to perform job 5
Defining Sexual Harassment Title VII does not reach genuine but innocuous differences in the ways men and women routinely interact . . . (Oncale v. Sundown Services Inc.) 6
Defining Sexual Harassment Prohibition of harassment on the basis of sex requires neither asexuality nor androgyny in the workplace. 7
Employer Liability for Sexual Harassment ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Did the employer exercise reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior? ? ? ? Did the employee unreasonably fail to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 8
Using Investigation to Establish Precise Nature of Conduct Was there a consensual relationship? Has alleged harasser ever sexually harassed anyone else? 9
The Conduct Was Not Severe or Pervasive Verbal banter from a soured relationship E-mails Love letters Staring 10
The Employee Unreasonably Failed to Utilize the Employer s Complaint Procedures Reasonable Care Unreasonable Employee 11
Good Faith Defense Punitive damage can be avoided when employers make good faith efforts to comply with Title VII. 12
Considerations for Good Faith Defense The User Friendly Policy Company Enforces the Policy Prompt investigation 13
Considerations for Good Faith Defense Confronting employees with rumors Love contracts Respond to all dating (customers or other outside sources) 14
The Harassment Was Not Based On Sex Conduct resulted from sexual sparks flying? OR Conduct resulted from resentment of failed relationship? 15
The Harassment Was Not Based On Sex Not all types of sexual favoritism violate Title VII. It is the Commission s position that Title VII does not prohibit isolated instances of preferential treatment based upon consensual romantic relationships. An isolated instance of favoritism toward a paramour (or a spouse, or a friend) may be unfair, but it does not discriminate against women or men in violation of Title VII, since both are disadvantaged for reasons other than their genders. (EEOC Policy Guidance on Sexual Favoritism) 16
Sexual Favoritism OR Sexual Harassment? DeCintio v. Westchester County Medical, 807 F.2d 304 (2nd Cir. 1986) Kaminski v. Freight-A-Ranger, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18858 (2002 ND IL) Succar v. Dade County School Board, 229 F.3d 1343 (11TH Cir. 2000) 17
The Harassment Was Not Based On Sex [a]s long as men and women work together, the potential for sexual sparks to fly in the workplace will always exist. But after a longtime sexual relationship like this one goes sour, it will be only the unusual case that can escape summary judgment. Mosher v. Dollar Tree Stores, 240 F.3d 662, 668 (7th Cir. 2001) 18
Workplace Romance Policies Include a clear statement that supervisor/subordinate relationships are not allowed If circumstances make it impossible to transfer one of the employees involved in the supervisor/subordinate relationship, appoint an uninvolved supervisor to handle the performance and/or compensation review of the subordinate employee 19
Workplace Romance Policies Apply the policy consistently to all employees, i.e., to management and staff alike Train supervisors about the provisions of the policy and how to constructively deal with workplace romance issues Draft a policy that is specific to your particular workplace 20
Workplace Romance Policies Consider whether any existing relationships should be grandfathered in under the new policy Consider the use of Consensual Relationship Agreements or Love Contracts 21
Responding When the Romantic Relationship Resumes Have employees inform the company should the relationship resume Remind employees of the need to report harassment 22
Reducing The Risk Of Sexual Harassment Suits Policies limiting employee dating Risk RiskRisk Clearly defined sexual harassment policy Risk Risk Investigate romantic relationships claims early and thoroughly Take responsive action 23
Summary Judgment When the Sexual Relationship Goes Sour The conduct was not based on sex. The conduct was not severe or pervasive. The employee unreasonably failed to utilize complaint procedure. 24
QUESTIONS? 25
North Carolina Association of Municipal Attorneys 2010 Annual Summer Conference August 5-7, 2010 Patricia L. Holland Jackson Lewis LLP 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 215 Cary, North Carolina 27518 919-424-8608 patricia.holland@jacksonlewis.com
