Office Romance Essay Example

leave a community club such as the Lyon's Club. However, it is important to acknowledge that an employee who engages in harmful behavior towards coworkers likely has deeper issues beyond participation in any seemingly harmless organization.

Therefore, in the event that the employee leaves the club, the behavior may recur in relation to another personal activity, such as a church or a team sport. To achieve the desired outcome of a change in workplace behavior, the employer should assess the situation and take appropriate disciplinary and educational measures. If the employer wishes for the employee to leave Lyon's Club, is that a legitimate right? Considering that the behaviour has an effect on the work environment, which the employer is responsible for protecting, courts have determined that an employer may violate an individual's rights if it is deemed essential for a compelling business interest.

(Gold, 2006) Prioritizing employee safety in regards to harassment and solicitation is essential for businesses. However, it is not necessary for employers to force an employee to leave the Lyon's Club. Instead, they should request that the employee refrain from engaging in inappropriate behavior at work and avoid discussing club-related matters if unable to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. It is also recommended that employment agreements clearly state that violating company policies may lead to termination. By agreeing to comply with behavioral guidelines set by the company, employees can retain their membership in a private club.

The employer's power is limited, as demonstrated by this example. Although they can control behavior during working hours, it is generally improper for them to regulate an employee's personal life outside of work. However, the situation described here

is not as clear-cut as expecting privacy while bathing at home and falls outside of the court's authority in determining when a company can infringe on individual rights. Despite this, there is little justification for preventing employees from joining the Lyon's Club.

It is discouraged to date your boss. In comparison, two employees have chosen to have a consensual romantic relationship. One of them is the CFO of a large manufacturing firm and supervises the other, who serves as the company's controller. The couple engages in romantic activities outside of company grounds on their own personal time and remains discreet about the relationship, keeping it hidden from most co-workers. Unlike the example of the Lyon's Club, the couple's behavior at work remains normal. However, the employer has a compelling interest in preventing certain behaviors and may request that they refrain from dating each other as a necessary means to that end.

The company may face liability if a relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate arises, which creates a conflict of interest situation. It is the employer's obligation, with legal and moral authority, to disallow this type of relationship. Avoiding conflicts of interest is a compelling business interest that companies often enforce by forbidding employees from engaging in such activities. This is evident in the California ISO, which prohibits its employees from investing in businesses that deal with the company, as it controls the state's electricity flow.

Preventing conflicts of interest and accusations of favoritism towards particular energy providers is crucial. In order to prevent collusion, fraud, and embezzlement by employees, companies implement checks and balances. They establish financial policies that allow a controller to approve checks

up to a certain dollar threshold, while anything above that limit requires the CFO's signature. The policy aims to deter misuse of spending power by the controller, which could be compromised if they are in a romantic relationship with the CFO. A lot of businesses prohibit high-level finance staff from forming relationships that may facilitate opportunities for collusion, fraud, or embezzlement.

According to Hanley (2007), preventing fraud is a crucial business interest. Prohibiting situations that increase the likelihood of employee fraud is necessary to achieve this interest. Additionally, if two employees in a romantic relationship were to get married, marital privilege would apply, preventing them from testifying against each other. The example of the CFO and controller dating highlights other issues related to supervisor and subordinate relationships. These include allegations of favoritism, sexual harassment, employee morale problems, and hostile work environments. However, simply having the potential to create liability for the company is not sufficient justification for restricting personal privacy in romantic relationships. Hanley likens this reasoning to prohibiting activities like skiing because of potential health care costs.

The possibility of liability must be reasonably high and its consequences significant. A 1998 study by the Society for Human Resource Management found that approximately 28% of office relationships could result in complaints of favoritism, while 24% could lead to sexual harassment claims and another 24% could cause decreased productivity among involved employees (Wilson, 2003). Other surveys indicate that between 40% and 58% of Americans have dated a colleague at least once (McArther, 2001), while a survey conducted by Vault, Inc. discovered that workplace romances had increased from 46% to 58% over two years (Vault, Inc.).

In a survey conducted

by Navarro (2005), it was found that 14% of the 600 individuals surveyed had engaged in romantic relationships with their superiors, and 19% had dated subordinates. Such inter-office romances can lead to potential human resource problems and financial damages. A court ruling in California highlights the severe consequences of supervisor-subordinate relationships. Consistently giving preferential treatment to a colleague who is involved in a romantic affair with the boss may result in sexual harassment lawsuits.

According to Navarro (2005), it is important for companies to establish policies that prevent workplace romances from causing issues. This is especially true when a romantic relationship forms between a supervisor and subordinate, as conflicts may arise and prove costly for the company. In these situations, companies have the right to interfere with an employee's privacy and prohibit such relationships. Wilson (2003) notes that employees who knowingly violate anti-fraternization rules cannot expect privacy protection in these matters, unlike joining organizations like the Lyon's Club which typically do not pose any legal liability for companies.

The consequences of workplace romances can vary based on the circumstances. Sexual harassment and favoritism typically result in more significant damages than allegations of unwanted solicitation or social pressure. Thus, companies may consider banning office romances only involving supervisors and subordinates or conflicts of interest rather than all romantic relationships in the workplace. While it may be argued that companies have the right to limit certain types of romantic connections, this does not give them the power to forbid all office romances. If a romance does not involve a supervisor and someone under their command, issues concerning favoritism and quid pro quo situations are irrelevant. As such, there is

a lower possibility of costly legal repercussions which makes the company's business interests less compelling; however, an inter-office romance still presents risks such as creating a hostile work environment, affecting productivity or lowering morale.

(Tuohey 2006) According to the Lyon's Club member case, it is morally and legally more appropriate to create policies that regulate specific office behavior rather than romance. This approach can prevent the emergence of issues related to excessively restrictive policies. According to (Dreyfack 2005), overly restrictive policies can be controversial, difficult to enforce, and may result in legal claims. Employees may feel their privacy is being invaded and may resent interference in their personal lives. Policies that aim to improve morale and avoid legal action may have the opposite effect if they are too restrictive.

One solution for companies to address office romance without being too restrictive is to have a policy where employees involved in a romantic relationship that does not present a conflict of interest should inform their supervisor and confirm that it is consensual, as consensual relationships are not defined as harassment. This approach provides the company with legal documentation to protect against liability. Additionally, policies such as contracts, sexual harassment policies, and employee evaluations are all proper and ethical ways for the company to prevent any negative impacts resulting from interoffice romances as long as other liability factors are not present. (DeBare, 2007).

The reason for infringing on an employee's right to privacy, which previously was considered necessary for the benefit of the company, is no longer valid. There are alternative ways to safeguard the company, and implementing a strict policy against dating is no longer necessary and is a

breach of employees' privacy rights.