Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

4. A NTI -F RATERNIZATION P OLICIES

Policies prohibiting “fraternization” or dating between supervisory employees and their subordinates are not unconstitutional or illegal per se, and employers may be able to demonstrate legitimate business reasons for prohibiting dating or sexual relationships between supervisory employees and their subordinates. However, it would likely be more difficult for an employer to prove that it had a legitimate business interest in prohibiting relationships between employees of equal status than between supervisory/subordinate employees.

Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp. A California appellate court upheld a “conflict of interest” policy, that stated in part, that a supervisor involved in a consensual intimate relationship with an employee within that supervisor’s direct or indirect area of responsibility, must bring the relationship to management’s attention for appropriate action, including reassignment to avoid a conflict of interest. 495 A supervisory employee who had been given a choice of either terminating a romantic relation with a subordinate or resigning, challenged the policy. The California Court of Appeal upheld the policy. The court found that even assuming the supervisor had a legally protected privacy interest in his intimate relationship with a subordinate, he could not establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in such a relationship. 496 The Barbee court noted that employers have legitimate interests in “avoiding conflicts of interest between work-related and family-related obligations; reducing favoritism or even the appearance of favoritism; [and] preventing family conflicts from affecting the workplace.” The court further noted that managerial- subordinate relationships present issues of potential sexual harassment. Crosier v. United Parcel Service, Inc. The employer, UPS, had an unwritten rule prohibiting social relationships between management and non-management employees. 497 The plaintiff, a management employee, claimed wrongful termination on the grounds that his dismissal for violation of this non-fraternization rule was not for good cause. In determining whether his dismissal based on this violation constituted good cause, the court reasoned that it must balance the employer’s interest in operating his business efficiently and profitably with the interest of the employee in maintaining his employment. The court found that the employer was legitimately concerned with appearances of favoritism, possible claims of sexual harassment and employee dissension created by romantic relationships between management and non-management employees.

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2021 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 160