Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

 Supervision - is it likely that one of the spouses or related individuals would have supervisory responsibilities over the other?  Safety - is it possible that one of the spouses or related individuals may be responsible for making an important or emergency decision or taking any action that could be affected by the spouse or related individual’s co-employment?  Security - does the relationship raise questions about an individual’s ability to maintain the confidentiality or security of the employer’s property or matters to which the employer has a duty of confidentiality?  Morale - would or does the relationship pose problems for morale? Normally this would arise in connection with problems with supervision, safety or security. Similar problems with supervision, safety, security or morale may exist when co-workers have special off-duty relationships. For example, dating among co-workers is common. Occasionally, co-workers will develop long-term relationships and perhaps live together. Employees have a strong expectation of privacy in these personal, off-duty relationships. However, an employer has a legitimate interest in controlling or preventing any adverse effects the relationship has on supervision, safety, security or morale. A supervisor’s consensual sexual relationship with a subordinate does not per se violate federal or state anti-discrimination laws or public policy. Similarly, preferential treatment by a supervisor towards his/her paramour does not, by itself, constitute sex discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or Title VII. 490 In the 2005 landmark decision of Miller v. Department of Corrections 491 the California Supreme Court definitively recognized that an employee may establish an actionable claim of sexual harassment under the FEHA by demonstrating widespread sexual favoritism that was severe or pervasive enough to alter his or her working conditions and create a hostile work environment. In short, the California Supreme Court added sexual favoritism to the list of conduct that can constitute sexual harassment. 3. C ONSENSUAL W ORKPLACE R OMANCES AND S EXUAL F AVORITISM

Proksel v. Gattis 492 In Proksel , a male supervisor showed preferential treatment toward a female word processor with whom he was allegedly having an affair by giving her a larger year-end bonus than any other employee, more valuable Christmas gifts, and going with her to a private birthday lunch. Even so, the court held that the supervisor’s preferential treatment toward an employee with whom he is romantically involved is not—in itself—sex discrimination under FEHA.

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2021 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 158