Workplace 'Love Contracts' Draw Renewed Focus in #MeToo Era
"Love contracts" are not themselves new, but they are getting greater attention in workplaces now as companies take fresh looks at harassment policies, training and internal procedures amid the national conversation about how to protect workers from inappropriate behavior.
February 08, 2018 at 04:13 PM
5 minute read
The heightened awareness of workplace sexual harassment puts activities such as drinks after work, company barbecues and even what to say around the watercooler under new scrutiny as companies reconsider drawing lines that perhaps once were blurred.
One of the top issues on the minds of corporations and law firms is how to reckon with interoffice dating, and management attorneys said they're getting more calls these days about so-called “love contracts.”
While some employers may ban office romances altogether, others require employees to sign consensual agreements that both acknowledge the relationship and company harassment policies, said Clarence Belnavis, a labor and employment partner at Fisher & Phillips.
“Love contracts” are not themselves new, but they are getting greater attention in workplaces now as companies take fresh looks at harassment policies, training and internal procedures amid the national conversation about how to protect workers from inappropriate behavior.
A “love contract” is a way for companies to potentially shield itself from liability by reminding employees who are dating of the policies and laws surrounding sexual harassment. Such agreements should be in addition to at a minimum a basic policy on harassment and guidelines for the whole company, which include multiple ways to report harassment.
An Association of Corporate Counsel site hosts a sample love contract, drafted by Joseph Beachboard, a managing director at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart. The contract reiterates rights under Equal Employment Opportunity statutes and requires professionalism during and after the relationship.
These contracts typically will contain provisions that affirm the relationship is consensual, acknowledge that each employee is free to leave the relationship without fear of retaliation and attest that both parties fully understand the company's sexual harassment policy. Some may require that employees remain professional while at work and report to Human Resources when the relationship ends.
Employment lawyer Paul Buchanan, writing in 2001 at an American Bar Association business law page, said these contracts are “not really enforceable legal agreements of any kind.”
“While they serve many worthwhile goals, such as confirming the voluntary nature of the relationship and advising employees of the company's sexual harassment policy, many employers find that this legalistic-seeming approach is too contrived and formal, and, as a result, they opt to do nothing at all,” Buchanan, now a partner at Buchanan Angeli Altschul & Sullivan, wrote.
Buchanan said that even consensual relationships can lead to risk, noting that by some counts 50 percent of sexual harassment lawsuits arise from relationships that started out as consensual. Legal complications come from quid-pro-quo relationships and hostile work environment claims.
Many companies have no interest in getting involved in employees' personal lives, Belnavis said. “Most companies will say, 'Hey, these are big boys and girls. We don't want to be involved with what happens outside of work,” he said. “We know now from the #MeToo movement, that these reminders are a good way to bring the message home about anti-harassment obligations to re-emphasize appropriate workplace conduct.”
Belnavis said companies are taking more steps on their own now, whereas they previously took a back seat on these agreements. He said he encourages clients to think about having a plan in place before any issues arise.
A recent CareerBuilder survey found that more than 36 percent of workers surveyed dated a coworker, and a third of those involve a supervisor. The survey found office romance is at a 10-year low, down from 41 percent in 2016.
“Office romance is experiencing a dip and whether it's impacted by the current environment around sexual harassment or by workers not wanting to admit the truth, the fact remains that office romance has been around forever and will continue to be,” Rosemary Haefner, chief human resources officer at CareerBuilder, said in a statement. “To avoid negative consequences at work, it's important to set ground rules within your relationship that help you stay professional in the office and keep your personal life private.
Striking a balance is key to implementing ground rules for workplace relationships, Tony Dick of Fisher Phillips said in a recent piece at Crain's Cleveland Business. Rigid policies banning all relationships is difficult to police and enforce, he wrote.
“Although there are several benefits to the use of a love contract, it should not be viewed as a 'cure-all,' nor should employers be lulled into a false sense of security,” Dick wrote. “Businesses must still be cognizant of some of the practical concerns that can come along with workplace dating—such as feelings of animosity, uncomfortableness or favoritism among coworkers—that love contracts do not necessarily fix.”
Some companies take hard-line approaches when crafting the rules. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Facebook Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Google say employees are only allowed to ask a coworker out once. Facebook also trusts employees to report conflicts of interest in an office romance to Human Resources, but it is not necessarily required to report a date between a supervisor and a subordinate.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250