When a law firm issued a less-than-200-word memo clearing a top mayoral aide of misconduct in a messy City Hall scandal earlier this month, many were surprised.
After all, a mayoral cabinet chief had invited a lower-level city employee from another department — someone who already had a romantic relationship with one of the chief’s subordinates — to a hotel for the night, as reported in the Boston Globe. Didn’t the interaction violate some no-brainer policy against workplace romance between employees? According to the mayor and the external investigation, it did not.
Before declaring the case closed, Mayor Michelle Wu wouldn’t directly say whether the city has a specific prohibition on romantic relationships between employees. When asked whether employee dating is allowed on aJune episode of GBH’s Boston Public Radio, Wu said the city addresses workplace romance when a supervisor and a subordinate’s relationship presents a conflict of interest.
“The rules that govern how the city administers our HR policies around relationships [are] the conflict of interest law and ethics laws,” the mayor said, adding that there are many city employees who are married and those laws apply to familial relationships as well.
As it turns out, workplace romances are fairly common throughout the U.S. workforce, and many major cities, like Boston, don’t explicitly regulate dating among employees.
According to a recent survey of U.S. workers and HR professionals from trade association SHRM, formerly the Society of Human Resource Management, 52% of U.S. workers have either been in or are currently in a workplace romance.
“I think it’s an inherent part of the workplace when you’ve got people together eight, ten, or twelve hours a day,” said Theresa Adams, an advisor with SHRM, when asked how the incidents could be both so taboo and so common.
A third of those surveyed indicated that their organization’s approach to workplace romances were “clear and structured,” featuring a well-defined policy that allows workplace romances but sets clear boundaries and expectations to maintain professionalism.
Another third indicated their employers’ approach was “flexible,” or handled on a case-by-case basis with guidance if issues arise, while 22% said the policy was “hands-off,” meaning they lack a formal policy and take no proactive stance on workplace romances, only addressing issues if and when they occur.
Adams said even though the “flexible” and “hands-off” approaches are reactive policies, they still expose an employer to less risk of lawsuits, sexual assault or harassment claims, accusations of favoritism and reputational damage.
“I do think it’s risky not to have any type of a policy,” she said, noting that some employers ask workers to disclose their dating relationship and declare it consensual and not a problem for their job. “I think that’s a good practice because it can be a valuable tool for businesses to manage those workplace relationships while protecting the organization as well.”
Only 5% of those surveyed said their jobs have “strict and restrictive” policies that either discourage workplace romances, or prohibit them altogether — a rule with what Adams called “questionable” enforceability, since there are always people willing to do what they want “regardless of their employer policy.”
An informal survey of nearly two dozen major cities around the country by GBH News suggests that many, like Boston, lack an explicit policy on workplace romance. Instead, many deal with issues through more general conflict of interest and ethics laws.
Of the several U.S. cities that responded to GBH inquiries regarding workplace romance and fraternization policies, only a few had explicit disclosure standards for employees who are dating. Like SHRM’s survey results, very few cities have an explicit prohibition against workplace romance.
New York City and San Jose offer perhaps the most clear and structured policies.
San Jose requires supervisors to notify higher ups and make alternative supervisory arrangements so as not to make or influence decisions related to the subordinate employee with whom they have a consensual romantic relationship. In New York City, all employees are required to disclose to HR when they have a romantic relationship and can be subject to discipline for violating that policy, per a city official.
Phoenix also prohibits managers from supervising and making employment decisions involving benefits or penalties for someone with whom they have a “conflicted relationship,” a term that includes romantic partners. Employees are also required to disclose when they have a relationship that meets that definition.
In San Antonio, employees and supervisors are prohibited from engaging in an intimate, romantic or dating relationship with an employee within their chain of command. Public displays of affection during work hours are also prohibited and would be considered a violation of the city’s Municipal Civil Service Rules, per a press official.
Cambridge has a soft policy for dating relationships that involve a supervisor-subordinate dynamic spelled out in its employee handbook: “Should two current employees, one of whom supervises the other, enter into a personal, non-work related relationship, one or both employees may have to be transferred.”
Charlotte, Denver, Houston, San Diego, Somerville and Worcester all, like Boston, lack formal policies on dating between employees and rely on conflict of interest rules to respond to situations as they arise.
The mayor’s office has made no mention of changing this approach in light of the recent scandal. So far, only one city official, Boston City Councilor Ed Flynn, has called for Boston to reevaluate its approach to employee dating.
Produced with assistance from the Public Media Journalists Association Editor Corps funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private corporation funded by the American people.
