Abstract

While most employers, managers, and employees have heard and read much about the #MeToo movement, little academic attention has been devoted to ethical analysis of office romance and sexual favoritism polices in the modern workplace. Everyone is likely to agree that romantic relationships will continue in the workplace regardless of organizational policies; nevertheless appropriate, policies should be in place to protect against any adverse legal consequences stemming from romantic relationships in the workplace; and these policies also should be promulgated and enforced in such a manner that all workplace policies and actions can be considered moral and ethical. Accordingly, in this article, we provide a thorough ethical analysis of office romance and sexual favoritism in the sensitive era of the #MeToo movement as well as the “canceled culture” era. We offer specific recommendations to management and human resources professionals on how to provide a safe and healthy work environment for all employees, how to avoid liability for sexual harassment cases as they relate to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as well as how to ensure that the workplace is fair and just for all. We conclude that every company’s management and human resources departments should take full responsibility for ensuring that business decisions, especially those affecting the employees, are aligned with legal, moral, and, of course, ethical norms. First and foremost, appropriate policies, programs, procedures, and training are necessary to combat sexual discrimination and harassment and thus to ensure a fair, just, and functional workplace. We believe that prevention is the best means of proactively eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace. Each firm should include a clear and strong policy statement against sexual harassment and discrimination in their code of conduct expectations. The policy should have direct statement of the intolerance and prohibition of any form of sexual harassment and illegal discrimination. Each firms should also have an effective policy distribution, communication to employees and enforcement plan. Finally, retaliation must be avoided. As such, there should be assurances that complaining employees will be protected from harassment or retaliation.

Keywords: office romance, love contracts, sexual favoritism, #MeToo movement, ethical egoism, ethical relativism, utilitarianism, Kantian ethics.

JEL Classification: F10.

Cite as: Mujtaba, B. G., Cavico, F. J. (2020). Ethical Analysis of Office Romance and Sexual Favoritism Policies in the #MeToo Workplace and “Cancel Culture” Era. SocioEconomic Challenges, 4(4), 132-150. https://doi.org/10.21272/sec.4(4).132-150.2020

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Adams, Susan (2009). How to Have a Successful Office Romance. com. Retrieved January 23, 2011 from: http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/11/office-romance-affair-leadership-career-sex.html.
2. Alatorre v. Mabus, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60850 (District Court for the Southern District of California 2015).
3. Binion v. PNC Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36867 (District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 2017).
4. Blount v. Northrop Grumman Info. Tech Overseas, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146407 (District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia 2014). Available at: https://casetext.com/case/blount-v-northrup-grumman-info-tech-overseas.
5. Boyd, C. (2010). The Debate over the Prohibition of Romance in the Workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 325-338. DOI: 1007/s10551-010-0512-3.
6. Brake, Deborah L. (Fall 2019). Coworker Retaliation in the #MeToo Era. University of Baltimore Law Review, 49, pp. 1-58. Available at: https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol49/iss1/2.
7. Broderick v. Ruder, 685 F. Supp. 1269 (District for the District of Columbia 1988). Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/685/1269/1881925/.
8. Byun, Kibum (Fall 2014). You Can Get Fired for Flirting: Critique of Sex Discrimination Law in the Workplace Through Nelson v. Knight. Cardozo Journal of Law & Gender, 21, 259-287.
9. Careers, V. (2019, February 14). Attention Cubicle Cupids: The 2019 Office Romance Survey Results Are In! Available at: https://www.vault.com/blogs/workplace-issues/2019-vault-office-romance-survey-results (Accessed November 10, 2020).
10. Cavico, F. J. and Mujtaba, B.G. (2018). Teaching Law, Ethics, and Social Responsibility in a School of Business: A Value-Driven Approach to Leadership and Sustainability. Marketing and Management Innovations Journal, 4, pp. 263-81. DOI: http://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2018.4-23.
11. Cavico, F. J. and Mujtaba, B. G. (2017). Diversity, disparate impact, and discrimination pursuant to Title VII of US civil rights laws: A primer for management. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 36(7), 670-691. Link: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-04-2017-0091
12. Cavico, F. J., Muffler, S. C. and Mujtaba, B. G. (2013). Appearance Discrimination in Employment: Legal and Ethical Implications of “Lookism” and “Lookphobia”. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32(1), 89-119. DOI: 15640/jhrmls.v4n1a1.
13. Cavico, F.J., Muffler, S.C., and Mujtaba, B.J. (2012). Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the American Workplace: Legal and Ethical Considerations. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1), pp. 1-20. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Sexual-Orientation-and-Gender-Identity-in-the-Legal-Cavico-Muffler/a6f81b0adbd8a886635e967367a39f935f346c24#citing-papers.
14. Cavico, F.J., Mujtaba, B.G., and Samuels, M. (2012). Office Romance: Legal Challenges and Strategic Implications. International Journal of Management, IT, and Engineering, 2(8), pp. 10-35. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Office-Romance%3A-Legal-Challenges-and-Strategic-Cavico-Samuels/ed460ba75cd8260140cf8c0a94c48ec7424a6849.
15. Cofer v. Parker-Hannifin Corp., 194 F. Supp. 3^d 1014 (District Court for the Southern District of California 2016). Available at: https://casetext.com/case/cofer-v-parker-hannifin-corp-3.
16. Crisanto v. Cnty. Tulare, 2015 S. Dist. LEXIS 154734 (District Court for the Eastern District of California 2015).
17. Davidson, David D. and Forsythe, Lynn M. (2011). The Entrepreneur’s Legal Companion. Boston, Massachusetts: Prentice Hall. Available at: https://www.gettextbooks.com/isbn/9780136077237/.
18. DeCinto v. Westchester County Medical Center, 807 F.2d 304(Second Circuit Court of Appeals1986), certiorari denied, 108 Sup. Ct. 89 (1987). Available at: https://casetext.com/case/decintio-v-westchester-county-medical.
19. DeLong v. Oklahoma, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56410 (District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma 2016).
20. Doyle v. Advanced Fraud Sols., LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46642(District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina 2020).
21. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1980). Guidelines on discrimination because of sex, 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2016-title29-vol4/xml/CFR-2016-title29-vol4-part1604.xml.
22. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (January 12, 1990). Policy Guidance on Employer Liability under Title VII for Sexual Favoritism. Available at: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/policy-guidance-employer-liability-under-title-vii-sexual-favoritism (Accessed September 10, 2020).
23. Farkas, R., Johnson, B., McMurry, R., Schor, N., & Smith, A. (2019). State Regulation of Sexual Harassment. The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 20, 421-466. Available at: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/gender-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2019/04/GT-GJGL190005.pdf.
24. Flores, Claudia (2019). Beyond the Bab Apple: Transforming the American Workplace for Women after #MeToo. University of Chicago Law Review, pp. 85-121. Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2019/iss1/4/.
25. Gallo, Amy (February 14, 2019). How to Approach an Office Romance (and How Not To). Harvard Business Review. Available at: https//www.hbr.org/2019/02/how-to-approach-an-office-romance-and-how-not-to (Accessed October 26, 2020).
26. Garvin v. Southwestern Corr. LLC, 391 F. Supp. 3d 640, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101421 (District Court for the Northern District Texas 2019). Available at: https://casetext.com/case/garvin-v-sw-corr-llc.
27. Gasparino, Charles (September 20, 2020). Fink Looks Deep: BlackRock intrudes on office romances. New York Post, Post Business, p. 49. Available at: https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/blackrock-intrudes-on-office-romances/.
28. Gilani, S.R.S., Cavico, F.J., and Mujtaba, B.G. (2014). Harassment in the Workplace: A Practical Review of the Laws in the United Kingdom and the United States. Public Organization Review, 14, pp. 1-18. DOI: 1007/s11115-012-0202-y.
29. Gomes, G. M., Owens, J. M., & Morgan, J. F. (2006). The Paramour’s Advantage: Sexual Favoritism and Permissibly Unfair Discrimination. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 18(2), 73-88. DOI: 1007/s10672-006-9006-y.
30. Green, Michael Z. (2019). A New #MeToo Result: Rejecting Notions of Romantic Consent with Executives. Employment Rights & Employment Policy Journal, 23, pp. 115-164. Available at: http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org/blog/2019/08/a-new-metoo-result-rejecting-notions-of-romantic-consent-with-executives.htm#.X9-uHNgzbIU.
31. Houseman, Catherine (Fall 2019). A #MeToo Movement: Third Circuit Gives Hope to Victims of Workplace Sexual Harassment. Temple Law Review, 92, pp. 205-296. Available at: https://www.templelawreview.org/comment/a-metoo-moment-third-circuit-gives-hope-to-victims-of-workplace-sexual-harassment/.
32. Kelly v. Howard I. Shapiro & Assocs. Consulting Eng’rs, P.C., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110935 (District Court for the Eastern District of New York 2012). Available at: https://casetext.com/case/kelly-v-howard-i-shapiro-assocs-consulting-engrs.
33. Kieffer v. Tractor Supply Co., 2019 S. Dist. LEXIS 56523 (District Court for the District of 2019).
34. Kreis, Anthony Michael (2020). Defensive Glass Ceilings. George Washington Law Review, 147, 147-202. Available at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/faculty_pub/2987.
35. Leong, Nancy (2019). Them Too. Washington University Law Review, 96, pp. 941-1006. Available at: https://www.law.du.edu/documents/directory/full-time/nancy-leong.pdf.
36. Marcus v. Leviton Mfg. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1065 (District Court for the Eastern District of New York 2016). Available at: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1747567.html.
37. McKissic v. City of Reno, 2019 S. Dist. LEXIS 119567 (District Court for the District of Nevada 2020).
38. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/477/57/.
39. Middlemiss, S. (2019). Relationship Problems? Liability of Employers for Sexual Relationships at Work. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Equality and Diversity, 5(1), 1-23. Available at: http://journals.hw.ac.uk/index.php/IPED/article/view/62.
40. Miller v. Aluminum Co. of America, 679 F. Supp. 495 (District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania1988), affirmed, 856 F.2d 184 (Third Circuit Court of Appeals 1988). Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/679/495/1529472/.
41. Miller v. Dep’t of Corr., 115 P.3d 77 (California Supreme Court 2005).
42. Morgan, Spencer (September 20-26, 2010). The End of the Office Affair. Bloomberg Businessweek, pp. 73-75. Available at: https://www.ijmra.us/project%20doc/IJMIE_AUGUST2012/IJMRA-MIE1479.pdf.
43. Morris v. Acadian Ambulance Servs., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43734 (District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana 2015). Available at: https://casetext.com/case/morris-v-acadian-ambulance-servs-inc.
44. Mujtaba, B. G. and Senathip, T. (2020). Workplace Mobbing and the Role of Human Resources Management. Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(1), 17-34. Available at: https://armgpublishing.com/journals/bel/volume-4-issue-1/article-2/
45. Mujtaba, B.G., Cavico, F.J., and Senahip, T. (2020). Strategies for Personal, Organizational, and Professional Leadership Success. Scientific Journal of Research and Reviews, 2(3), 1-10. Available at: https://irispublishers.com/sjrr/fulltext/strategies-for-personal-organizational-and-professional-leadership-success.ID.000538.php.
46. Mujtaba, B.G., and Cavico, F.J. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability Model for Global Firms. Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, 10(1), pp. 58-76. Available at: http://rn.www.na-businesspress.com/JLAE/MujtabaBG_Web10_1_.pdf.
47. Mujtaba, B. G., Cavico, F. J., Senatip, T., and Utantada, S. (2016). Sustainable Operational Management for Effective Leadership and Efficiency in the Modern Global Workplace. International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behavior and Decision Sciences, 2, 673-696. Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/hcbe_facarticles/492/.
48. Nichol v. City of Springfield, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199467 (District Court for the District of Oregon 2017).
49. Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B. and Wright, P. M. (2021). Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage (12^th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Available at: https://www.mheducation.com/highered/product/human-resource-management-noe-hollenbeck/M9781260262575.html.
50. Paludi, Michele A.; Barickman, Richard B. (1991). Definitions and incidence of academic and workplace sexual harassment. Academic and workplace sexual harassment: a resource manual. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Available at: https://www.sunypress.edu/p-1269-academic-and-workplace-sexual-h.aspx.
51. Pearce, II, John A. and Lipin, Ilya, A. (2015). Mitigating the Employer’s Exposure to Third Party Claims for Hostile Work Environment. Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 26, pp. 319-53. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303348178_Mitigating_the_Employer’s_Exposure_to_Third_Party_Claims_of_a_Hostile_Work_Environment.
52. Poff v. Oklahoma, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5568 (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2017).
53. Quinn, R. (1977). Coping with cupid: The formation, impact and management of romantic relationships in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 30–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200311.
54. Romero v. McCormick & Schmick Rest. Corp., 448 F. Supp. 3d 1(District Court for the District of Massachusetts 2020). Available at: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20200318b39.
55. Schneider v. GP Strategies Corp, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17003 (District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky 2017).
56. Senyucel, Z. and Phillpott, S. (2011). Sexual equality and diversity in UK local councils. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 30(8), 702-718. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02610151111183216.
57. Shellenbarger, Sue (February 10, 2010). For Office Romance, the Secret’s Out. The Wall Street Journal, pp. D1, D2. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704182004575055191587179832.
58. Smith, P., & Holland, J. (2020). ‘Love Contracts’ Go Mainstream as Employers Track Office Romance. Available at: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/love-contracts-go-mainstream-as-employers-track-office-romance (Accessed November 05, 2020).
59. Srinivasan, Ama (February 2020). Sex as a Pedagogical Failure. Yale Law Journal, pp. 1100-1146. Available at: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/sex-as-a-pedagogical-failure.
60. Stewart v. SBE Entm’t Grp., LLC, 239 F. Supp. 3d 1235 (District Court for the District of Nevada 2017). Available at: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170308i79.
61. Syaebani, M.I., & Rachmawait, R. (2017). Romance in the Workplace: Analysis of Justice Perception toward Policies Concerning Romance in the Workplace. Journal of Theory and Applied Management, 10(2), 149-168. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20473/jmtt.v10i2.4509.
62. Trottman, Melanie (January 12, 2011). Charges of Bias at Work Increase. The Wall Street Journal, p. A2. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703791904576075802209115360.
63. Wasche v. Orchard Hosp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152286 (District Court for the Eastern District of California 2020).
64. Weiss, Deborah M. (2019). Sexual Harms without Misogyny. University of Chicago Legal Forum, pp. 299-341. Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2019/iss1/20.
65. com (2020). Employee relationships in the workplace policy. Available at: www.resources.workable.com/workplace-policy-romance-policy-example (Accessed October 5, 2020).
66. Zillman, Claire (July 18, 2018). Employers are clamping down of office romance in the #MeToo movement, but it will never die. Fortune. Retrieved October 28, 2020 from: https://fortune.com/2018/07/18/metoo-office-romance-workplace-policy.