I’m not the biggest fan of television these days. While there may be more content than ever, I’d opine that the quality is far inferior than when there were only three channels during my formative years in the 1980s. Suffice it to say, I always am looking for something new and interesting (recommendations can be sent to this author at rentin@fordharrison.com).
Knowing that I am a labor and employment attorney, a good friend recently recommended a new workplace comedy on Amazon Prime called Company Retreat. Company Retreat is a mockumentary, much like The Office or Parks and Recreation, but there’s a catch. Unlike those shows, which featured all actors, the protagonist in Company Retreat thinks that he is working for a real company called Rockin’ Grandma’s Hot Sauce. He is not in on the joke.
In the pilot episode, a team-building exercise quickly veers into uncomfortable territory when one employee (the Human Resources Director of all people, who else?) decides it’s the perfect moment to propose to a coworker – publicly, emotionally, and in front of coworkers who didn’t sign up to witness a life-changing event. The fallout when the proposal was not accepted? Awkward silence, visible discomfort, and palpable dose of “cringe.” While hysterical (if you enjoy this type of humor), it highlights a very real issue for employers: when personal relationships spill into the workplace.
Workplace relationships can be a challenge, and at times, inevitable. Blanket bans tend to fail both culturally and practically. Employees will form relationships regardless of policy, and overly restrictive rules can invite skepticism – or outright disregard. At the same time, ignoring workplace relationships is not a viable option. Unmanaged relationships create risk: favoritism claims, conflicts of interest, and, in more serious cases, harassment and retaliation allegations. The better approach is a middle ground: manage, do not prohibit.
A well-drafted policy should require disclosure—but only where it matters. For example, “Employees must disclose romantic relationships that could create a conflict of interest, a reporting relationship, or a risk of workplace disruption.” This type of policy strikes an appropriate balance. It avoids unnecessary intrusion into purely personal matters while placing the burden on employees to surface relationships that create risk. From a legal standpoint, disclosure requirements also serve an important defensive. Where an employer has clearly required disclosure and an employee fails to comply, the employer is in a stronger position to argue it neither knew nor should have known of the issue – an important consideration in harassment and retaliation litigation.
If there is one area where employers should draw a bright line, it is relationships involving a power differential. Relationships between supervisors and subordinates – whether direct or indirect – present the greatest legal exposure. This includes not only formal reporting lines, but also situations involving:
- Influence over compensation or scheduling
- Input into performance evaluations
- Authority over discipline or advancement
Even ostensibly “consensual” relationships can later be reframed as coercive, particularly if the relationship ends and adverse action follows. Accordingly, best practice is to prohibit such relationships outright and require immediate disclosure if they arise. Once disclosed, the employer should implement a structural solution -such as reassignment or a change in reporting lines – to eliminate the conflict.
This is especially true because while workplace relationships create risk, breakups can lead to liability. Many harassment and retaliation claims do not arise while a relationship is ongoing, but after it ends – particularly where one party has influence over the other’s schedule, evaluations, or advancement. What may have once been characterized as a consensual relationship can quickly be reframed through a different lens once the dynamic changes. Employers should be attuned to this reality and monitor for sudden shifts in treatment. Reinforcing anti-retaliation obligations – and, where appropriate, proactively separating reporting lines – can go a long way toward mitigating risk before a routine breakup becomes a legal problem.
Even the most thoughtfully drafted policy will fall apart if it is not applied consistently. Exceptions – particularly for senior leaders or high performers – undermine both enforceability and credibility. Just as important, employers should be mindful of optics. Workplace relationships can erode morale and trust where coworkers perceive favoritism, even in the absence of actual bias. That perception alone can drive complaints, disengagement, and attrition. Accordingly, employers should ensure that policies are enforced uniformly, decisions are documented, and workplace dynamics are evaluated not only for legal compliance, but also for their broader impact on culture.
In Company Retreat, the HR Director’s ill-fated proposal is played for laughs, but it serves as a useful reminder: the workplace is not immune from personal relationships, nor should employers expect it to be. What they can control, however, is how those relationships are managed when they arise—and, perhaps more importantly, when they unravel. With thoughtful policies, consistent enforcement, and a clear-eyed view of both legal risk and workplace dynamics, employers can avoid turning moments of human connection into organizational headaches. And, unlike Rockin’ Grandma’s Hot Sauce, they can do so without becoming the punchline.
Rob Entin is a partner in the Chicago office of FordHarrison. He represents and advises employers on employment litigation, workplace compliance, and a broad range of labor relations matters, including union organizing, unfair labor practice defense, and collective bargaining.