The Law on Workplace Romances

February 2006

As Cupid rears that bow this month, a look at the emerging law governing love on the job.

General Credit

1.

California statutes do not directly address an employer’s right to regulate employees’ conduct during nonworking hours.

True False

2.

Some courts have held that an employer’s written warning to a supervisor that dating an employee on the job is prohibited may trump the supervisor’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the conduct.

True False

3.

California courts have recognized that community norms may play a role in an employee’s expectation of privacy in the workplace.

True False

4.

California’s statutory provisions banning workplace discrimination have been broadly interpreted to create a public policy prohibiting employers from taking adverse action against employees based on nonwork behavior.

True False

5.

Sexual harassment, conflicts of interest, and appearances of favoritism all can have negative effects on office productivity that courts may deem to be a legitimate interest justifying some regulation of workplace behavior.

True False

6.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that consenting adults’ rights to engage in private sexual behavior is constitutionally protected.

True False

7.

Several California courts have held that firing employees because of whom they date or marry involves a less-serious invasion of privacy than was involved in <i>Lawrence v. Texas</i>, which was based on the right to have consensual sex.

True False

8.

Like most other states, California recognizes constitutional claims only in cases involving state action.

True False

9.

Generally, courts have assumed that the right to participate in a workplace romance is a legally protected privacy interest under the principles set forth in <i>Lawrence</i>.

True False

10.

Under present California law, an employee who receives advance notice that fraternization on the job is prohibited cannot invoke a protected right to privacy in the conduct.

True False

11.

A plaintiff’s expectation of privacy is irrelevant in determining whether a protected privacy right exists.

True False

12.

An employee who can prove a reasonable expectation of privacy in a romantic relationship in the workplace essentially has a prima facie case for recovering on a charge of an employer’s invasion of privacy.

True False

13.

Currently, the most difficult hurdle for employees to overcome in establishing a claim for a constitutional invasion of privacy is that the conduct involved a serious rather than a de minimis invasion of privacy.

True False

14.

One foolproof way for employers to avoid all liability for privacy invasion claims based on their regulation of workplace romances is to write and enforce a strict antifraternization policy.

True False

15.

At least one California court of appeal has held that community norms do not support a supervisor’s romantic involvement with employees he or she supervises.

True False

16.

In <i>Barbee v. Household Automative Finance Corp.</i>, a California appellate court inferred that employees have a right to pursue a sexual relationship at work.

True False

17.

The decision in <i>Ortiz v. Los Angeles Police Relief Ass’n</i>, holding that an employee was legally fired after telling her employer that she intended to marry a convicted felon, was based on an analysis of right to marry protections rather than right to workplace privacy protections.

True False

18.

Though the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in <i>Lawrence</i> gives specific protections to adults who wish to engage in private consensual sex, it has no legal ramifications for the right to conduct romances in the workplace setting.

True False

19.

To establish a constitutional invasion of privacy claim in California, a plaintiff must prove that there is a legally protected privacy interest, a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a serious invasion of privacy.

True False

20.

The California Supreme Court recently elucidated the standard of review in employee privacy cases, holding that to be protected a privacy invasion need only be rationally related to a compelling employer or state interest.

True False

HOW TO RECEIVE ONE HOUR OF MCLE CREDIT Answer the test questions above, choosing the one best answer to each question. For timely processing, print or type your name/address/bar number below. Mail this page and a $35 check made payable to CALIFORNIA LAWYER to:

California Lawyer/MCLE P.O. Box 54026 Los Angeles, CA 90054-0026

name (required) bar number (required) law firm, company, or organization address city, state, zip

date (required) practice area phone email please check here if this is a new address

Please click here to close this window