Given how much time employees spend at work, it’s no surprise that romantic liaisons often develop. Many turn into happy relationships, but some end in disaster—for both the participants and their employer. This is particularly true when one person has direct or indirect control over the other at work, which can lead to allegations of sexual harassment if the relationship sours.
To prevent these problems, some employers have adopted nonfraternization policies. Now, a new California appeal court ruling demonstrates how these policies can protect you.
Supervisor Dates Sales Worker
Robert Barbee, the national sales manager for Household Automotive Finance Corp. (HAFC), began dating Melanie Tomita, a member of HAFC’s sales force.
Because relationships between employees may raise a conflict of interest, HAFC has a conflict-ofinterest policy that requires a supervisor in a relationship with a subordinate to bring the situation to management’s attention “for appropriate action (i.e., possible reassignment to avoid a conflict of interest).”
Supervisor Given Ultimatum
When rumors of Barbee’s relationship with Tomita reached company CEO John Vella, he and the company’s HR director, Pat Boney, met with Barbee to tell him the relationship raised a potential conflict of interest. They told Barbee he could either end the relationship or he or Tomita could resign. Barbee was given the weekend to decide.
The following Monday, Barbee told Vella and Boney that he and Tomita wanted to keep their jobs. Based on this conversation, Vella and Boney allegedly assumed that Barbee chose to end his relationship with Tomita. But soon after, Barbee attended several basketball games with Tomita using tickets given to him by an HAFC customer. When Vella and Boney learned of this, Barbee was terminated.
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
Supervisor Sues
Barbee sued HAFC, claiming that being terminated because of his personal relationship was an invasion of his privacy. He also charged he was wrongfully discharged in violation of a public policy barring employers from taking adverse action against an employee for lawful conduct during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises.
No Invasion Of Privacy
A California appeal court ruled the termination didn’t violate Barbee’s right to privacy. According to the court, supervisors don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in pursuing an intimate relationship with employees who work for them. That’s because employers have legitimate interests in avoiding conflicts of interest between work-related and family-related obligations, in reducing favoritism issues, and in preventing family conflicts from affecting the workplace. Plus, HAFC limited Barbee’s privacy expectation by issuing a policy regarding the potential for conflict of interest in these situations.
The appeal court also rejected Barbee’s wrongful termination claim. The court explained the law Barbee relied on that bars employers from interfering with employees’ outside activities doesn’t set forth a public policy. That’s because this law, Labor Code section 96(k), doesn’t actually give employees any rights but merely sets up a procedure for the labor commissioner to assert constitutional protections on behalf of employees. Thus, said the court, to rely on Labor Code section 96(k) for a wrongful termination claim, Barbee would first have to show that the discharge violated a constitutional interest, such as his right to privacy, which he didn’t do.
Practical Impact
This ruling endorses the use of nonfraternization policies as a way to avoid conflicts of interest in the workplace that can arise out of supervisor-subordinate personal relationships. These policies can be an important part of your efforts to prevent sexual harassment complaints.
It’s also important to note this is the first published opinion to look at Labor Code section 96(k), which bars interference with an employee’s outside activities. The court limited the scope of that law’s protection for employees by ruling employees could only sue under the law if the employer’s actions violated a constitutional right. But future decisions could tip the law more favorably toward employees—which could mean greater restrictions on when you can limit what an employee does on his or her own time. That’s because, as this court noted, another Labor Code provision incorporates the prohibitions on employer interference delineated in section 96(k). The court didn’t delve into the scope of this other law because neither Barbee nor HAFC raised it.