Company no dating policy dating mumford

Looking deeper however, interpretation of these statutes is narrow when it comes to office romances, failing to recognize a romantic activity as a “protected recreational activity”. Local governments within these states have similar statutes and rules prohibiting employers from taking adverse action on employees for off-duty, off-company-premises conduct, so long the conduct is lawful.(And that’s not a loaded question; you can certainly decide for plenty of legitimate reasons that you do.) But if you decide that you do, then yeah, I’d avoid hanging out with your male coworker socially, unless you’re prepared to potentially lose your job over it.(In addition to facing dismissal for fraternizing with a man, you also should not appear unescorted in public or dress immodestly.

Non-Fraternization Policies and the Law Traditionally, a company policy is designed to keep the balance of power between employees (as individuals) and the company as a whole – defining good versus bad conduct and consequences that are associated with the bad. In the case of two California Department of Corrections employees working at a prison where the warden was having an affair with three other employees – not so good. The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs causing companies even more reason to be concerned about workplace relationships – even when consensual.

14-02.4-01), such a policy seems useless in preventing workplace romances from developing.

Unfortunately, modern studies on this issue bring something we already associate with workplace romances – complexity.

The same survey shows that 45% of survey were unsure if their company had a dating policy.

Yes, another study to suggest only HR reads the handbook – great.

Leave a Reply