I've read a number of stories on SOL in which an angry spouse sues a company because the company, in violation of written anti-fraternalization policies allowed an employee (usually an executive in the stories I've read) to have sexual relations with another employee.
If that's true, why would any company adopt such policies? If they have no such policy, employees cannot violate it.
If that's true, why would any company adopt such policies?
To help prevent accusations of sexual harassment, or claims they knew of it and decided to look the other way. And also to help prevent accusations of nepotism, or promotions because of such a relationship.
And the term you want is Fraternization.
why would any company adopt such policies?
For many reasons, especially if one has management authority over the other. Imagine the conflict of interest with merit reviews, raises, assignments, etc. as in favoritism. And imagine the impact on the company if the two have a falling out.
For many reasons, especially if one has management authority over the other. Imagine the conflict of interest with merit reviews, raises, assignments, etc. as in favoritism. And imagine the impact on the company if the two have a falling out.
Explored in detail in AWLL because, well, Steve. ๐คช
My ambulance company has no policy prohibiting line staff from dating, but once they are in a "declared relationship" they can't so much as touch while on shift. Management goes as far as to schedule folks at different bases where possible if they work on the same day.
If that's true, why would any company adopt such policies? I
Such lawsuits are groundless. As long as the company has plausible deniability (the exec at least tried to hide the affair) the company doesn't have a responsibility to ensure nobody violates the policy, they just have to take action when the policy is violated. Usually, the 'appropriate' response is to fire the lower-ranked employee and place some sort of 'official reprimand' in the executive's personel file.
But there's plenty of reasons for such a policy. For example, when a executive's dalliances become too public knowledge, in order to protect him the other half of the affair can be quietly fired for violating the policy, slapped with a gag order in order to keep her severance package, or in a large enough company just be reassigned to a location on the other side of the country. Or picture a family-owned firm - to scare golddigger employees from trying to marry into the family, any that go on a single date with the boss's son get fired before there's any connection. Other reasons have also been mentioned. There's probably a few more.
Usually, the 'appropriate' response is to fire the lower-ranked employee and place some sort of 'official reprimand' in the executive's personel file.
In the US at least, that would be an invitation for the lower-ranked employee to file a sexual harassment suit along with retaliation charges.
If the policy is vague enough about minimum punishments, and clearly states that punishments are "up to and including termination for cause" the company can claim that due to the expense of replacing a senior executive, the company chose to handle his punishment in-house (and there's no way the information about exactly what was done would be given out freely). Also, while the lower-ranked would be terminated 'for cause' she'd also be offered a financial settlement to relocate or whatever, just as bait to get a NDA signed, which any such lawsuit would void, and open up to all kinds of penalties. If the company is smart, the NDA would claw back any winnings in court if the employee sued.
If the policy is vague enough about minimum punishments, and clearly states that punishments are "up to and including termination for cause" the company can claim that due to the expense of replacing a senior executive, the company chose to handle his punishment in-house (and there's no way the information about exactly what was done would be given out freely).
Wouldn't work in the US. US law on this issue specifically prohibits retaliation.
They only way they could fire the lower level employee in a legally safe way is to come up with a cause for termination that had nothing to do with the relationship with the executive.
They only way they could fire the lower level employee in a legally safe way is to come up with a cause for termination that had nothing to do with the relationship with the executive.
Which might not be sufficient to avoid losing a retaliation lawsuit. The claim would be that the cause for firing was 'pretextual' and they would likely win.
Which might not be sufficient to avoid losing a retaliation lawsuit. The claim would be that the cause for firing was 'pretextual' and they would likely win.
True, the alternate cause would have to be real and very well documented in the employee's HR file. Even then the company would be guaranteed to win a retaliation suit.
Also, while the lower-ranked would be terminated 'for cause' she'd also be offered a financial settlement to relocate or whatever, just as bait to get a NDA signed, which any such lawsuit would void, and open up to all kinds of penalties. If the company is smart, the NDA would claw back any winnings in court if the employee sued.
In the event of a suit for harassment, the court would likely void the NDA, which would void any contractual penalties.
I was once nearly fraternalized by ฮฃฮง, but decided I didn't really like booze enough to bother joining.
My company has a Fraternlization policy but not Sororitilization policy. It's total bullshit.
So the girls can date each other but the guys can't date each other? Sounds like discrimination
I live in the USA and run a simple farm and my insurance policy holder as well as the state of Michigan basically demanded that I have a policy and guidelines on sexual harassment with the penalties and actions taken as well as reading and signing a document to state that they have ben informed and understand. I don't want this added headache and I'm sure that many other business and companies do as well but we must comply with all these neat rules and guidelines placed before us.
The basis of the OP's question is wrong. The lawsuits in the stories are pure fantasy. The policies are put in place to protect the employer, not the wronged spouse.
A violation of the policy doesn't give the wronged spouse any right to recover damages from the company.
Any competent attorney approached with such a claim would tell the client to forget it. The case would immediately be met with a frivolous lawsuit claim.
"The tort of criminal conversation seeks damages for the act of sexual intercourse outside marriage, between the spouse and a third party."
"In Smith v. Lee, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78987, the Federal District Court for the Western District of North Carolina noted that the question of whether an employer could be held liable for an affair conducted by an employee on a business trip was still unsettled in North Carolina."
NC is one of a few (about 20) that have such a law.
Only about a half dozen states allow actions for criminal conversation or alienation of affection.
One, unreported, case says the employer might be liable in damages. I assume that's on the basis of respondeat superior.
Even if such an action could be brought, that would have nothing to do with policies on employee relationships. The continually repeated fantasy is that those policies somehow protect a stranger (the spouse) to the employment contract. They don't.
The continually repeated fantasy is that those policies somehow protect a stranger (the spouse) to the employment contract. They don't.
Beating up the guy you find in bed with your wife is also out. Tossing them out, individually or collectively, is also illegal. Even calling the cops to have him arrested for trespassing won't work, because it's likely one of the residents (the wife) invited him in. In more ways than one.
Eliminating continually repeated fantasies like those is sure to make the stories more enjoyable.