AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Fraternization With Co-workers - Prohibitions on
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Does
Ordering an Employee to Refrain From Certain Personal Contacts Violate
Constitutional Due Process? by Michael P. Stone and Marc J. Berger, 2007
(3) AELE Mo. L.J. 501.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Relatives and Romance:
Nepotism and Fraternization, 2007 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Regulation of an Employee's
Off-Duty Activities. Part Four– Sexual Conduct, 2008 (3) AELE Mo. L.
J. 201.
A former probationary police officer fired after an internal affairs investigation into her romantic relationship with a fellow officer sued, asserting that her termination violated her constitutional rights to privacy and intimate association because it was impermissibly based in part on disapproval of her private, off-duty sexual conduct. Both she and the male officer she was involved with were separated from, although still married to, other individuals. A federal appeals court ruled that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on her claim for violation of her constitutional rights to privacy and intimate association. A genuine factual dispute existed as to whether the defendants fired her at least in part on the basis of her extramarital affair. These rights were clearly established at the time, the appeals court stated, so it reversed the trial court’s grant of qualified immunity on her privacy claim. But it upheld summary judgment on the plaintiff’s due process claim because any due process rights she might have had were not clearly established at the time of the challenged action, and therefore the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. Summary judgment on a sex discrimination claim was also upheld because the evidence indicated that disapproval of her extramarital affair, rather than gender discrimination, was the cause of her firing. Perez v. City of Roseville, #15-16430, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 3212 (9th Cir.).
Rejecting a freedom of association
argument, the 11th Circuit dismisses the suit of a demoted firefighter who had
an extramarital affair with one of his subordinates. The relationship between
supervisors and subordinates is critical to the effective functioning of the
fire department. Starling v. Bd. of Co. Cmsnrs., #09-11168, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 7091 (11th Cir.).
Eighth Circuit holds
that it is not illegal under Title VII for an employer to discharge an employee
for consensual sexual conduct with a superior. Tenge v. Phillips, #05-2803,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 10586 (8th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
Sixth Circuit agrees that a county had a rational
basis for terminating the plaintiff's at-will employment where her romantic
relationship with a man who is married to a woman employed in the same building
was unacceptably disruptive to the workplace. Beecham v. Henderson County,
#04-5845,422 F.3d 372, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 19431, 2005 FED App. 0385P, 23 IER
Cases (BNA) 648 (6th Cir.2005). {N/R}
Arbitrator sustains a misconduct complaint
against an officer who had sexual relations with an Explorer Scout. A ten-day
suspension is reduced to a written reprimand because management failed to
communicate the fraternization prohibition in writing as required under the
bargaining agreement. City of Bremerton and Bremerton Police Officers Guild,
121 LA (BNA) 915 (Reeves, 2005). [2006 FP Jan]
National Labor Relations Board, in a 2-to-1
decision, upholds an employer's work rule that directs employees not to
"fraternize on duty or off duty, date or become overly friendly with the
client's employees or with co-employees." The rule was designed "to
provide safeguards so that security will not be compromised by interpersonal
relationships either between ... fellow security guards or between ... security
guards and clients' employees." Guardsmark, LLC and Service Empl. Int.
Union, L-24/7, #20-CA-31573-1, 2005 NLRB Lexis 257, 344 NLRB No. 97 (NLRB
2005). {N/R}
Sixth Circuit holds that it was not a violation
of a teacher's due process rights of intimate association or privacy to deny
her tenure for maintaining a close personal relationship with a student.
Flaskamp v. Dearborn Pub. Sch., #02-2435, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 20760 (6th Cir.
2004). {N/R}
Sixth Circuit overturns a verdict won by a former
police officer that disobeyed the chief's order to stop dating a subordinate.
Such rules prevent favoritism and sexual harassment complaints. Anderson v.
City of LaVergne, #02-6094, 371 F.3d 879, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11734, 2004 FED
App. 0180P (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 FP Sep]
Employer must have an anti-fraternization policy
to punish an off-duty relationship. Without a privacy policy, the employer
could not discipline the grievant for reading a superior's e-mails, or for
opening sexually explicit e-mails from a coworker where the sending party was
not disciplined. Monterey County and Individual Grievant, CSMCS No.
ARB-01-0050, 117 LA (BNA) 897 (Levy, 2002). [2003 FP Feb]
Washington supreme court concludes that
"dating" is not protected under the state's Marital Status
Discrimination laws. Policies prohibiting dating of co-workers is valid in the
private sector, but may violate the First Amendment when the parties are public
employees. Waggoner v. Ace Hdwe., 134 Wash.2d 748, 953 P.2d 88, 1998 Wash.
Lexis 206. [1998 FP 136]
U.S. District Court upholds wrongful termination
claim by employee who was fired for cohabiting with a former executive. Pasch
v. Katz Media, 10 IER Cases (BNA) 1574, 1995 U.S.Dist. Lexis 11153 (S.D.N.Y.),
citing N.Y. Labor Law Sec. 201-d(2)(c). [1996 FP 6]
Appellate panel concludes that dating is not a
protected activity and sustained their terminations for violating a company
policy. New York v. Wal-Mart Stores, 10 IER Cases (BNA) 255, 621 N.Y.S.2d 158,
207 A.D.2d 150 (1995). [1996 FP 6]
Former deputy settles her suit against the
sheriff; she was fired after dating a married deputy. Massingale v. Taylor,
U.S. Dist. Ct. (D. S.C. 1991), reported in the Anderson [S.C.] Independent
(9/5/91).
Employer's alleged enforcement of its rule
prohibiting dating among co-workers, if applied to the plaintiff because of her
gender, states a disparate practice claim under Title VII. Zentiska v.
Cardinal, 708 F.Supp. 1318, 1988 U.S.Dist. Lexis 11047, 47 FEP Cases (BNA)
1823. {N/R}