California Supreme Court rules that workers who are not involved in office romance can sue for sexual harassment.
David I. Kornbluh

On July 18, 2005, the California Supreme Court held that a supervisor who has an affair with a subordinate can be found to have sexually harassed other employees who are not involved in the affair. Miller v. Department of Corrections.

While the facts of this case are extreme, it does raise potential liability for all employers. According to plaintiffs, the warden of the women’s correctional prison gave preferential transfers to his paramours even in situations where plaintiffs were more qualified. In one instance, the warden rejected the recommendation of the Promotion Board in order to promote his paramour over plaintiff. The Supreme Court held that “although an isolated instance of favoritism on the part of a supervisor toward a female employee with whom the supervisor is conducting a consensual sexual affair ordinarily would not constitute sexual harassment, when such sexual favoritism in a work place is sufficiently widespread it may create an actionable hostile work environment in which the demeaning message is conveyed to female employees that they are viewed by management as ‘sexual playthings’ or that the way required for women to get ahead in the workplace is by engaging in sexual conduct with their supervisors or management.”

While the facts of this case are extreme, it does raise potential liability for all employers. In light of this decision, employers should consider adopting policies that prohibit supervisor/subordinate relationships, even when those relationships are consensual. The supervisor/subordinate relationship opens the employer to the potential of liability. Employers must promptly investigate any allegations of favoritism just as they would any other complaint of sexual harassment.

(c) Copyright 2005 Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis. All rights reserved.
The information provided here is intended to educate the reader regarding issues of contemporary business interest. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or recommendations for application to any specific legal dispute. You should always confer with your legal counsel about the application of the principals and issues discussed to your own circumstances.