Managing Office Romances: RPJ’s Ethan Krasnoo Outlines Flexible Policy Approaches in “Health Payer Specialist”

In a recent interview for Health Payer Specialist, RPJ’s Ethan Krasnoo explores the challenges companies face in managing office romances, noting that rigid “no-dating” policies can create difficulties for both employees and employers. He illustrates this with the example of a married couple who had worked for a company for years before a new owner introduced a strict no-couples policy, forcing one spouse to leave. Mr. Krasnoo explains, “A flexible policy that prohibits relationships between an employee and a direct manager can make sense to avoid allegations of favoritism, sexual harassment or quid-pro-quo.” He also highlights the complexities of disclosure requirements, observing, “Some policies can cause headaches for companies…These are potential issues companies may grapple with when forming disclosure policies.”

Mr. Krasnoo emphasizes that disclosures should be clear, confidential, and consistently enforced to reduce the risk of discrimination claims. He advises that instead of blanket bans, companies could focus on preventing conflicts of interest – such as relationships in which one employee influences decisions affecting a co-worker they are dating – while still allowing employees reasonable personal freedoms. He advocates for flexible, practical policies that protect the company while respecting employees’ personal lives.

Read the full article here.

This article is intended only as a general discussion of these issues. It is not considered to be legal advice or relied upon.

For more information, please contact RPJ Partner Ethan Krasnoo who counsels clients in areas of complex commercial litigation, arbitration, mediation and dispute resolution, and employment, intellectual property, and entertainment and media. Mr. Krasnoo is admitted to practice law in New York, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and United States Tax Court.