Consensual Relationship Agreements (CRA) Case Study

Many societal changes have converged within the last fifty years to create an environment where workplace romances must be addressed. The old movie scenarios where the boss (male) fooled around with the secretary (female) and the office morale plummeted because no one wanted to be the one to complain about favoritism are gone. The increase of women in the workplace and in managerial positions; increased hours spent at work; increased travel away from home; the push for equality among genders and the resulting integration of the sexes; employee sophistication regarding rights and legal redress on the job; and human resource professionals that fear being sued for sexual harassment complaints from within the employee ranks—all of these and more have resulted in the perceived need to create a document to regulate relationships on the job. The risks related to getting into an on-the-job relationship should not be taken lightly. Participants should be very sure the benefits outweigh the risks because office romances can jeopardize job security and create unease for everyone in the office. If you put individuals with common interests together for 40-plus hours per week, office romance is bound to happen, experts say. Statistics seem to bear that out: According to a 2003 survey by Vault.com, an online career center, 47 percent of the 1,000 professionals surveyed had been involved in an office romance, and another 19 percent would consider it. Of those individuals who had a romance, 11 percent had dated their bosses or another superior. Twenty percent of those who had an office romance admitted to having a physical tryst in the office. (2)
Experts say that over 70% of single employees will become romantically involved with someone on the job at some point in their career. (4) According to Ruth Houston, a writer for many major contemporary publications, “Today’s workplace has become the new singles bar. It has also become the most likely place for married men and women to meet and conduct extramarital affairs.” (4) According to Helaine Olen, co-author of Office Mate: The Employee Handbook for Finding--and Managing--Romance on the Job (Adams Media, 2007), the issue is here to stay. She says it is crucial for HR professionals to accept that there will be office romances, and be prepared with policies and procedures in place to address it when it occurs. (3) As with any office policy, being prepared with a written process and policy already in place is the best approach. However the company chooses to handle it, the policy needs to be clearly communicated to the employees and acknowledged by them in writing.
The Consensual Relationship Agreement (CRA) approach to office romance has created spirited debate among those for it and those against it. Basically, it is a corporate agreement for those involved to agree to not pursue litigation against the employer if the relationship ends badly. Once the two people end the relationship, feelings of oversight, bias and less than fair treatment can arise. By signing the CRA document, the parties agree to not pursue sexual harassment charges against the other individual and the company. Most employers recognize it is impossible to outlaw office romance. But they do agree it is wise to control the negative impact such a relationship could have on the office environment. According to reports, the use of a CRA is not widespread. A survey conducted in 2006 uncovered that only 10 percent of human resource professionals say workers should be made to sign a CRA, and corporate attorneys revealed they had prepared less than a dozen a year.
This survey conducted by Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in 2006 on “Water Cooler Romance” (5) returned these additional results: * Percentage of companies with a no-fraternization policy: Written policy: 18 %; Verbal policy: 7 %; No policy: 72 % * Restrictions on relationships in companies with a no-fraternization policy: A supervisor and subordinate: 80%; Employees in same department: 24%; Employees with significant rank difference: 16 %; Employees and customers: 13 % * Consequences for violating company no-fraternization policy: Employee transfers: 42 %; Formal discipline: 36 %; Termination: 27 % * Outcomes of workplace romances: Those involved get married: 62 %; Complaints of favoritism: 44 %; Divorce of married employees: 29 %; Decrease of productivity: 26 %; Diminished co-worker morale: 25 %; Sexual harassment claims: 19 %; Stalking claims: 16 %; Complaints of retaliation: 15 %
This case study will address why a CRA should be used; why it should not be used; ethical issues of CRAs and suggest alternative options.
CRAs as a ‘Positive’ Even though romantic relationships in the workplace are common, employers have legitimate reasons for concern about employee dating. The biggest fear is a sexual harassment lawsuit arising from either: 1) a supervisor who has a habit of asking subordinates out on dates; 2) an employee who files a lawsuit after a consensual relationship goes sour; or 3) the perception of co-workers that a supervisor is playing favorites with his or her "significant other." Having an agreement protects the company against lawsuits, saving a lot of money and time. The “Abuse of Power” liaison, where a sexual relationship involves a manager and a subordinate, has great potential for serious consequences and detrimental morale issues. The perception of favoritism creates a divided workplace, full of resentment and wasted time. The perceived inequity often results in lawsuits. In some states, sexual harassment laws can be interpreted to include violation of third parties rights. If an employee views a supervisor as favoring a subordinate, the employee can sue the company--and the supervisor personally-- for sexual harassment. (1)
The leadership needs to buy-in to the CRA process and lead by example. Sometimes this is difficult because the romances are extra-marital. Signing a CRA is signing an admission of guilt. By having the CRA policy, employees could be less likely to engage in these affairs. But as with any corporate policy, enforcement must be fair and across the board. Workplace romances can lead to accusations of poor judgment, breaches of ethics, favoritism, lost productivity, poor employee morale, sexual harassment claims and even workplace violence. Too many of these stories make their way into the headlines today. A company’s reputation can be ruined by bad press.
"The numbers of workplace relationships that end up in litigation are low. The bigger problem is the morale and poor publicity when these relationships go bad," says Olen. "Love contracts help maintain a functional office environment. Having people dating each other can wreak havoc on an organization, especially a small organization." (3)
CRAs as a ‘Negative’ The downside of CRAs is that they are intrusive, subjective, ineffective, and can cause as many problems as they solve. They require someone to make a subjective determination as to the level of seriousness between employees, and the need for the CRA signatures. CRAs violate employee privacy and require a person outside the relationship to make a determination of need based on the level of involvement. CRAs are not legally binding documents, and therefore can be ineffective because even after signing, an employee could still break the document. A relationship can evolve and it could change into something negative, and signing a CRA would not prevent any recourse by the employee, but it would make it very difficult to prove there was harassment. According to Chris Edmonds-Waters, head of HR for SVB Financial Group, a diversified financial services firm of 1,100 employees in San Francisco, "It feels intrusive, almost like Big Brother getting into our bedrooms," she says. SVB Financial Group does not use love contracts, although the company has a no-fraternization policy that applies to supervisor-subordinate relationships. (1) These documents create a ‘Love Police” enforcement situation for the human resources department. They waste valuable work time monitoring situations and dealing with rumors related to office romance. Additionally, there is a lot of time to be spent drafting the documents and counseling the signatories. This could create a parallel resentment towards these HR employees because they are monitoring something perceived to be an invasion of privacy by most workers, and wasting time on something salacious instead of “really doing their work”, along with the resentment of the CRA document itself. The CRA, supporters’ state, is to protect office moral. But it can just as easily be detrimental to the workplace. A CRA does nothing to prevent the relationship, the perceptions of inequity or favoritism. It does not protect against lawsuits. It does create a lot of extra work, extra time to patrol, investigate rumors, and police behavior. This all takes away from work productivity.
Ethical issues with CRAs
Based on the Organization Interest Principle, the CRA can be viewed as the corporation acting on basis of what is good for the organization. It protects the company from sexual harassment lawsuits and could reduce the number of potentially bad relationships. It creates a more open atmosphere about relationships at work, acknowledging they occur. In situations where possible problems could arise, it is best to impose a policy to prevent them from affecting the company. This can save time, money, and problems in the long run. The demographics of the office workers should dictate the type of policy put into place. Many young people in their twenties are entering the workforce and socialize there. It would be a morale killer to mandate no office socialization. It would still occur anyway, and the policing requirements would increase. Everyone feels they have a right to their privacy, and the CRA does appear to violate this. Employees have a right to be with whomever they want during their off hours. But enforcement would be 24/7 and that would involve the expense of hiring someone to watch the works suspected of violating the policy. And there are married employees working for the same employer and their behavior must be held to the same scrutiny dictated by a CRA document controlling relationships at work.
The largest issue seems to be those relationships where the power balance is unequal and one participant ‘seeks to/or does’ gain from the relationship in an unfair manner. “Pillow Talk” is also a concern. In the military, there is a punishable article of conduct that says officers are prohibited from fraternization with enlisted personnel. Having worked in this environment, I speak from experience saying that article of conduct is rarely broken, and when it is, it is big news. Careers are put at risk, and destroyed if the relationship is discovered. Career progression in the military is largely a subjective evaluation by a superior officer. It is easy to perceive favoritism, or slight someone as retribution for a failed romance. And as warfighters, these people do not need the distractions.
These agreements are not mandatory and employees could refuse to sign. If these are voluntary, employers should tell both parties that they will not be penalized if they decide not to sign. However, there likely would be an implied consequence if you did not sign. Signing a CRA does not cause either party to waive all of their rights regarding sexual harassment or other wrongful behavior that may evolve at a later date; however, these contracts normally include an arbitration provision. If any adversarial action is later contemplated, the matter must be resolved through arbitration proceedings–not the public court system. In light of this, it’s always important to ask yourself if the relationship is really worth it. If you think it is, be prepared to be approached with one of these agreements.
Conflicts of interest may arise in connection with consensual romantic and/or sexual relationships between supervisors and subordinates. Corporate policy and ethical principles should preclude individuals from evaluating the work or performance of others they are or have been involved with.
Alternatives to CRAs The first alternative is to do nothing. Employees can be treated a adults, allowed to socialize with whoever they please outside of work, and be expected to behave professionally and ethically while on the job. No policy would need to be put in place, no policing, no spying, and no assumptions made about someone’s behavior. The other alternative is a policy of some kind that every employee would be expected to adhere to.
Consensual relationship policies can be one approach to managing the risk of sexual harassment claims, but they don’t work for every company. HR professionals need to be aware of other options to mitigate sexual harassment litigation risks. Consideration needs to be given to past incidents, what happened and the consequences. State laws in addition to federal laws, need to be considered when drafting policies. At the least, HR needs to establish a “no fraternization” policies clearly outlining acceptable behavior within the organization as well as consequences for employees who cross those boundaries. Most important, be sure that any policies are enforced consistently with employees at all levels. Aside from the CRA, and outlawing dating in the workplace, there is not much that can be done. A company could implement a "no dating" policy. However, the policy must be carefully drafted to avoid several potential problems. Considerations, in addition to state and federal law, include spouses who work for the same employer, concerns about an employee's right to privacy while off the job, and trying to investigate and enforce a "no dating" policy by hiring a private investigator to follow the employee around, secretly reviewing an employee's voice mail, or listening in on an employee's office phone line.
Summary
As mentioned earlier, CRAs are not common in the workplace yet. Most experts warn against forbidding office romance altogether. They see it as futile. But the potential is there for relationships to go bad at work and create a myriad of issues, lawsuits, and negative morale for all. The legal costs, damage to the corporate reputation and loss of productivity are just a few of the negative side effects. AS reported in the SHRM 2006 survey, the majority of companies canvassed had no policy in place. Those that did focused on the supervisor and subordinate restriction. Those companies with a policy in place did have enforceable consequences for its violation. And the largest complaint category was those other employees complaining of favoritism. Threats for employee retaliation were relatively low at 15%. This does not give much ammunition for the need to have such an invasive policy in place. CRAs are not widespread because perhaps, they are overkill. Companies do need to have fraternization policies that employees are held to. What these policies require depends on office internal and external demographics, past experiences with relationships at work, and a consistent level of commitment for enforcement of the policy. There has to be clearly communicated policy boundaries, with consequences for violating the policies clearly outlined. The situation will never change, and has been existence since working away from home began. Overall, proactive steps need to be taken by corporations to control and manage the potential risks of romantic relationships in the workplace. |
(5) Source: Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) 2006 Workplace Romance Poll.

(1) http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Dec/8/128619.html
Consensual Relationship Agreements
(2) Vault.com, an online career center (2) Helaine Olen, co-author of Office Mate: The Employee Handbook for Finding--and Managing--Romance on the Job (Adams Media, 2007), (3) Reference
Cohen, Anna A., (October 1, 2009). Office Romance: Do You Need a Workplace Dating Policy?
By: New York Employment Law Letter. Retrieved from http://www.hrhero.com/hl/articles/2009/10/01/office-romance-do-you-need-a-workplace-dating-policy-2/

Fennel, Alex, (January 1, 2003).Romantic relationships at work: Does privacy trump the dating police?. Published on AllBusiness.com. Retrieved from http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/careers/1077844-1.html#ixzz1kDtaAVE8

Heathfield, Susan M., (2012). Tips About Dating, Sex and Romance at Work
What's Love Got to Do With Office Romance?. Retrieved from http://humanresources.about.com/cs/workrelationships/a/workromance.htm

Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (2011). Organizational Behavior: 2011 Custom Edition (13th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Sutton, Randy (1999). Regulating Work Place Romances. SAALFELD GRIGGS PC. Retrieved from http://www.sglaw.com/publications.php?id=36&pubtype=showarticle
MLA Citation
"Consensual Relationship Agreement". Anti Essays. 19 Apr. 2012
<http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/188055.html>
APA Citation
Consensual Relationship Agreement. Anti Essays. Retrieved April 19, 2012, from the World Wide Web: http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/188055.html (4) Christian Science Monitor
Infidelity expert Ruth Houston is the author of Is He Cheating on You?- 829 Telltale Signs, a comprehensive guide which documents practically every known sign of infidelity. She has been quoted in the New York Times, the Toronto Sun, the New York Post, Cosmopolitan, the Christian Science Monitor, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Marie Claire and numerous other publications here and abroad. She has also been a guest on over 100 radio and TV talk shows in the US, Europe, South America, and the Caribbean, including Good Day New York, TalkAmerica, Telemundo, BBC, The Breakfast Club, Caracol Radio Network, ClearChannel, the Mike Gallagher Show, and 1010WINS.

To interview Ruth Houston, please call her at 718 592-6039 or email her at InfidelityExpert@gmail.com For more information on infidelity, visit http://www.InfidelityAdvice.com