Workplace Relationships Presentation

The recent scandal involving the relationship between a mayor and an aide and the possibility of perjury charges served as a reminder of the dangers involved in workplace fraternization. It's understandable that Greg Weinman's previous presentation at the January IEC meeting on the topic attracted an overflow crowd. An update of Greg's well-received presentation at the last Office of Government Ethics conference, attendance at the IEC version apparently benefitted from good word of mouth.

Without attempting to replicate Greg's presentation in its entirety, here are a few of the many thoughtful points covered, with hypertext links to the authorities referenced:

1. Existing authorities, including nepotism policies and OGE Opinion 01 x 8, do not adequately cover the many possible problems that can arise from romantic relationships in the workplace.
2. Mere consent to a supervisor's advances does not mean the advances were welcome. Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson.
3. Widespread favoritism by supervisors can be enough to create an offensive environment for purposes of sexual harassment law. Miller v Dept. of Corrections.
4. Relationships with younger employees are a particular danger area. Doe v Oberweis Dairy. (problems arose with relationship with 16 year old ice cream parlor employee even though she initiated relationship & it occurred outside workplace).
5. Matter of: DGS Contract Services (1991 bid protest decision to effect HUD could cancel solicitation due to relationship between contracting officer and bidder).
6. Written policies like the U.S. Mint's can help fill the gap.
7. Under some circumstances, requiring couples engaged in a workplace relationship to sign a consensual relationship agreement (sometimes misleadingly referred to as a "love contract") can provide some protection to an employer. These documents typically disclose the relationship, certify that it is voluntary, welcome and consensual, and acknowledge the organization's anti-fraternization policy. Though such agreements in the public sector could arguably implicate a constitutional right to privacy, they can be beneficial if carefully drafted.