today:
92
yesterday:
148
Total:
999,228

Articles about Careers

Litigation Cases Article : Love Contract

HRConsultant1 2012.10.22 11:02 Views : 1281

“Office romances pose several potential legal issues for employers, prompting some employers to use "love contracts" to help minimize their liability.

These  "love contracts" should be used to supplement a company's anti-harassment policy, not in place of a well-implemented policy against sexual harassment.

What are the potential legal liabilities of office romances? When a supervisor is dating a subordinate, other workers might claim that the subordinate received preferential treatment in job assignments or pay raises.

Also, if the relationship ends, the subordinate could claim that the relationship was not consensual and that he or she was sexually harassed by the supervisor and/or was the victim of retaliation.

When a dating couple is on the same reporting level, legal problems can also arise. For example, one worker might still have input into the other's performance evaluation or the awarding of bonuses.

Also, when the relationship ends, one worker might create a hostile work environment by giving the other person attention that is no longer welcome, she says.

Given these potential problems and a litigious society, some employers are implementing what are called "love contract" policies, which require dating employees t

A love contract policy should be incorporated into the employee handbook and be "widely disseminated" in the workplace through e-mail and/or a memo announcing the policy, and perhaps even a meeting explaining the policy and why the company is adopting it, she says. It’s also recommended discussing the policy in anti-harassment training programs.

The policy should explain that dating employees have an obligation to tell Human Resources about the relationship. Some employees may be reluctant to do so, particularly if the office romance is an adulterous or same-sex relationship.

To be certain that the policy is applied fairly and consistently, if the company becomes aware of any type of romantic relationship, it is important for someone from HR to approach the couple and ask them to sign a love contract.”

o sign a document outlining expected behavior and specifying that their relationship is consensual.

What to Include in Contracts

There are certain key elements that should be included in love contracts. For example, when employees are on the same reporting level, the contract should contain a statement "that the employees will not seek or accept a position where one reports to the other."

If one of the employees already supervises the other and it is not possible to transfer one of them to another department or worksite, it’s recommended that the supervisor agree "to be permanently removed from any decision-making authority over the subordinate."

In addition, the contract should state that:

  • Any dispute arising from the relationship or contract will be resolved through arbitration.
  • Employees may want to consult an attorney before signing the contract.
  • Dating employees are expected to follow certain guidelines, such as refraining from displays of affection at work or work- related events.
  • Either employee "can end the relationship without fear of work-related retaliation."
  • Dating employees agree to waive their rights to pursue a claim of sexual harassment for any event prior to the signing of the contract.

 

How to Implement the Policy

·         A love contract policy should be incorporated into the employee handbook and be "widely disseminated" in the workplace through e-mail and/or a memo announcing the policy, and perhaps even a meeting explaining the policy and why the company is adopting it, she says. It’s also recommended discussing the policy in anti-harassment training programs.

·         The policy should explain that dating employees have an obligation to tell Human Resources about the relationship. Some employees may be reluctant to do so, particularly if the office romance is an adulterous or same-sex relationship.

·         To be certain that the policy is applied fairly and consistently, if the company becomes aware of any type of romantic relationship, it is important for someone from HR to approach the couple and ask them to sign a love contract.”

No. Subject Date Views
39 Employment Law Basics 2016.01.14 927
38 연령 차별' 해고 60대에 2600만달러 배상 2014.03.01 1323
37 McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit 2013.12.27 1455
36 EEOC And Cooper University Health Care Reach Accord on Reasonable Accommodation Issues 2013.09.04 1792
35 Mississippi Holiday Inn Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Pregnancy Discrimination 2013.09.02 1492
34 AT&T to Pay Quarter Million Dollars to Settle EEOC Agen Disrimination Suit 2013.09.02 1646
33 BASF Corp. to Pay $500,000 to settle EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit Against Cognis 2013.06.08 1828
32 Stone Pony Pizza Sued for Race Discrimination 2013.06.08 1897
31 Panda Express Agrees to Early Settlement with EEOC to Resolve Sexual Harassment Suit 2013.06.08 1699
30 Joe-Ryan Enterprises to Pay $15K to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 2013.06.08 1711
29 $22.5 Million Verdict Reversed Where Employer Admitted Its Vicarious Liability For Employee’s Negligence 2013.05.28 1599
28 Egg Giant National Food to Pay $650,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 2013.05.26 1714
27 $192,500-EEOC settles Sex harassment and Retaliation Suit Against Grace Episcopal Church 2013.05.26 1558
26 No Such Thing as a Free Lunch: ConocoPhillips to pay $15.5 Million to Settle Meal Break Lawsuit 2013.03.03 1502
25 AT&T Workers Claim Lunch Break Violations 2013.03.03 1461
» Article : Love Contract 2012.10.22 1281
23 Fremont Toyota Pays $400,000 to Settle EEOC's Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit - Allegation 2012.08.19 1459
22 Fremont Toyota Pays $400,000 to Settle EEOC's Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit -Press Release-08-07-12 2012.08.18 1448
21 Owner of 25 McDonald's Restaurants to Pay $1 Million in EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit 2012.08.04 1324
20 Comfort Inn Oceanfront South Sued By EEOC for Religious Discrimination 2012.08.04 1420