Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com

According to some statistics, approximately 15-20 percent of couples meet at work. While perhaps not the predominate manner for individuals to find love, it does reflect that a decent portion of the population finds romance at the location she/he spends most of her/his day. One's enchantment, however, could be another's heartache with on-the-job romances providing an array of situations that may give employers heartburn. As such, management and those who advise them may gravitate towards an outright prohibition on workplace dating. But the pursuit of such a measure may not be necessary. Indeed, in a world dominated by social media and, consequently, a lessening in face-to-face interactions, curtailing the ability of those who breathe life into the company from finding happily ever after may be a tad draconian. As such, corporate counsel, in conjunction with human resources management (HRM), should consider drafting and implementing a balanced dating policy that both respects the employee's personal lives yet protects the employer's interests in avoiding touchy personnel matters.

Consider the following situation: A romance blossoms between two individuals working in the same department. One of them is promoted to a managerial position, with supervisory responsibilities over the other. The relationship runs its course, and the once lovebirds part ways amicably. Shortly thereafter, the supervisor must draft the performance review of the now-subordinate and, in so doing, honestly assesses the subordinate's work subpar. Downtrodden by the less-than-stellar review, the subordinate seeks a scapegoat, and quickly blames the former paramour, alleging the review's genesis has less to do with actual performance deficiencies and more to do with jilted feelings.

Also for deliberation: the holiday party is in full swing. Merriment is abounding.

Former suitors are reacquainted. The proverbial signals get mixed, with one thinking the other is interested in rekindling the relationship, which leads to displays of affection that are, in fact, not welcomed. Other merrymakers take notice, with disapproval. Gossip and complaints run rampant the following morning.

Creative lawyers can conjure any number of similar situations where the conduct is not per se improper or fodder for viable legal action against the company, but can nevertheless cause angst for the employer. In a similar vein, seasoned attorneys can foresee situations where liability may attach to the employer for the employee's conduct, resulting in the expenditure of time, financial exposure, and negative publicity. In-house counsel as problem avoiders can steer their companies away from such paths by following some basic and fair principals in managing workplace relationships.

The first principal is disclosure. Companies should consider requiring their employees to disclose the fact of a personal relationship with a colleague. Such disclosure clearly puts HRM on alert of the relationship, and can help them navigate any issues relevant to the relationship. The personal relationship may impact issues such as transfers and promotions, and HRM should be aware of this in coordinating these employee matters. It will also help HRM in determining any conflicts that may arise about the relationship (more on that below). HRM, in conjunction with management, will have full knowledge of the parameters needed for consideration in taking employee actions. In connection with this, couples should be instructed to refrain from any displays of affection during work hours, which would include company-sponsored social events, whether those are technically during business hours or held during off-hours. HRM should also consider asking employees to disclose any prior and now-nonexistent personal relationships, again to assist in making human resource decisions and diffuse any potential issues. Finally, such disclosures should be kept confidential, with HRM not disclosing to anyone other than necessary parties about the personal relationship.

While disclosure is important, restricting certain employees from dating one another may be a necessity. Stated differently, it would behoove companies to prohibit certain groups or categories of employees from dating one another. Perhaps the most obviously category is the superior/subordinate. Companies should prohibit subordinate/superior dating due to the host of problems that may arise from such a relationship, both when the relationship is in effect and after its demise. But such prohibition need not be too harsh, as employers may wish to consider  giving employees the option to transfer to a different unit if she/he wishes to pursue the relationship with the superior/subordinate. In similar fashion, employers are cautioned from permitting relationships between employees in the same department or unit. Romances between employees in this category also present a myriad of problems, both when the relationship is positive and when it turns south. As with the subordinate/superior, HRM should consider giving an option, if possible, to the employee to transition to another unit if she/he wishes to pursue and maintain the relationship.

A different problem may arise when a personal relationship develops between a managerial employee and an employee of lower rank who is not in a direct line of subordination with said managerial employee. A straight out prohibition may be unwarranted, unless there is a concern that the managerial employee may unduly influence the other's employment status. Factors that should be considered are how closely aligned the two departments are and the manager's status in the company hierarchy. Ultimately, whether a relationship causes a conflict might best be left to the sound of the discretion head of HRM.

Finally, such a policy should ultimately make it incumbent on the head of HRM to reserve the right to determine if a personal relationship causes a conflict. When a conflict is identified, HRM should form a policy clearly stating the procedures to follow to reach a resolution. Solutions to a conflict may include ensuring the parties do not work together on matters, the reassignment of duties and roles, or transfers to different departments.

Daniel K. Wiig is in-house counsel to Municipal Credit Union in New York where he assists in the day-to-day management of the legal affairs of the nearly $3 billion financial institution. He is also an adjunct law professor at St. John's University School of Law. He can be reached at [email protected].