Your Words Will Be Used Against You In A Lawsuit

The biggest mistake employees make is to talk about their claim when they are in an employment dispute with their employer. Many employees take a losing stand against their employers because they make statements that undermine their potential claim. Trevor Keezer, the Home Depot employee who was fired for wearing a “One Nation under God, indivisible” button, illustrates this point.

Keezer began work at the Home Depot in March 2008 as a cashier. During his employment, he wore a button with an American flag and the phrase “One Nation under God, indivisible.” Keezer says that none of his managers voiced any problem with the button until early October, 2009. Interestingly, that was around the time that Keezer began bringing a Bible to work to read during his lunch break. Keezer claims that his button (which he had worn for 19 months) became a problem only after he brought his Bible to work.

Home Depot denies Keezer’s allegations. Home Depot says that its “dress code policy states that we do not allow non-company buttons regardless of their message or content to be worn on aprons or other clothing to ensure a consistent policy for all associates.” Home Depot asked Keezer to remove the button pursuant to that policy. Keezer refused. The Company states that “after numerous discussions with Mr. Keezer over the course of several weeks, [it] offered him the option of wearing [its] current Home Depot ‘United We Stand’ pin that showcases [ ] military support.” Keezer did not want to wear that button. He preferred his own button because “you can’t have country without God. Every pin they showed me had no ‘God’ on it or anything.” On October 23, 2009, Home Depot terminated Keezer’s employment for violating the company’s dress code.

Since his termination, Keezer has hired an attorney and is planning to sue Home Depot for religious discrimination. Keezer also has been speaking to the media. Keezer’s more recent comments have consistently supported a religious discrimination theory, stating that Keezer wore the button as an expression of his Christian faith. But, that was not always the case. Keezer has made widely reported statements to the press attributing his termination to his love of country making statements such as “I was just doing what I think every American should do, just love my country” and “It feels kind of like a punishment, like I was punished for just loving my country.” Keezer stated, in an interview with Fox News, “I felt like I was punished for supporting my brother, the troops, and veterans. I just love this country and I don’t see how it’s American to make me take off a pin that represents so much.” Keezer does not have a viable lawsuit against Home Depot unless his claims are about religion. Those statements hurt Keezer’s impending religious discrimination lawsuit, because those statements do not connect Home Depot’s conduct to religion.

There is no law that prohibits private employers from terminating employees for making statements about politics, war, or “love of country.” The First Amendment does not apply to private employers. The only law that may be applicable is Title VII which protects an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs and practices. But, determining what actions and expression constitute a sincerely held religious belief can be tricky. Courts have struggled with distinguishing between a strong personal belief and a sincerely held religious belief for decades. That distinction will no doubt be a central issue in Keezer’s religious discrimination lawsuit.

Is wearing a button that says “One Nation under God, indivisible” a personal belief or a religious belief? Home Depot has already characterized Keezer’s conduct as a personal belief, telling the media that “expressing such personal beliefs is simply not allowed.” And, Keezer has made some statements that play into the personal belief/personal preference argument. Keezer stated that he preferred to wear his own button. He also stated in an interview that he wanted to wear his button because “as a Christian and as a citizen of America, you know, it is time that we stand up for our country and quit being pushed around by everybody else.” Those statements make it seem as though Keezer’s reasons for wearing the “One Nation under God, indivisible” button stemmed from personal beliefs and preferences rather than religious requirements or dogma. The Supreme Court has consistently held that philosophical and personal belief is not enough. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explained that “beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. . . . Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not ‘religious’ beliefs protected by Title VII.”

Although this is not a criminal situation, the words of the Miranda warning are instructive: Anything you say can and will be used against you. Trevor Keezer’s statements have not irreparably damaged his religious discrimination claim. But, some of his statements can and will be used against him. And, some of his statements have made his lawsuit and his attorneys’ work more difficult. An employee steps into a legal arena when he or she contemplates suing an employer. The legal arena is complex and its requirements are specific, narrow, and precise. Few employees know those requirements. Talking without knowing the legal requirements of your desired claim can cause you to lose that claim. Employees are better served by leaving the talking to their attorneys.

Evidence of “Other Harassment” is Relevant in Your Harassment Lawsuit

Litigation is a battle of persuasion. “Me too” evidence is often at the center of that battle. Plaintiffs routinely request information about other discrimination and harassment claims against the employer to bolster their own claim. Employers (recognizing the power of “me too” evidence) typically refuse the plaintiffs’ requests for that information. That refusal may be more difficult after Sandoval v. American Building Maintenance Industries, Inc., a recent Eighth Circuit decision which held that information about other discrimination and harassment claims is “highly relevant” and “highly probative” evidence.

The plaintiffs in Sandoval claimed that their coworkers created a hostile work environment by subjecting them to unwanted sexual conduct and then inflicting adverse job actions when they refused or disagreed with that sexual conduct. The plaintiffs had to prove that the Company knew or should have known about their harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action since the hostile work environment was created by a nonsupervisory coworker. The plaintiffs conceded that the Company did not have actual knowledge of their harassment. So, the plaintiffs attempted to prove that their employer should have known about their harassment by producing evidence that during the timeframe in which they were harassed at least 85 other employees reported similar treatment by their alleged harassers. The district court refused to consider that evidence. The district court then dismissed the sexual harassment claim on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not produce sufficient evidence to prove their claims.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. The Eighth Circuit stated that it has long held that harassment directed towards other employees is relevant and must be considered when judging the severity and pervasiveness of workplace harassment. The Court explained that “[i]rrespective of whether a plaintiff was aware of the other incidents, the evidence is highly probative of the type of workplace environment she was subjected to, and whether a responsible employer should have discovered the [ ] harassment.” The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the district court was wrong in disregarding the plaintiffs’ evidence of widespread sexual harassment.

Sandoval clearly holds that employees are allowed to offer evidence of other employees’ experiences in proving harassment. The Sandoval thinking does not appear to be limited to harassment cases. Last year, the United States Supreme Court decided an age discrimination case in which the district court excluded “me too” testimony about discrimination by supervisors who did nothing to the plaintiff. In Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, the Supreme Court held that “me too” evidence is neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible. The Court explained that the “question of whether evidence of discrimination by other supervisors is relevant . . . is fact based and depends on many factors, including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff’s circumstances and theory of the case.” The California Court of Appeals reached a similar decision last month in Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, a disparate treatment case. The Court stated that “evidence of prior acts of discrimination is relevant to an employer’s motive in discharging a plaintiff.”

Sandoval is an extremely favorable decision for employees. The Rules of Civil Procedure state that the parties are entitled to relevant information. And, Sandoval holds that information about “other employees’ harassment” is relevant. So, employees should not hesitate to request “other harassment” evidence from the employer defendant, especially since there is a reason employers do not want employees to have that information. It is persuasive. The fact that other employees made similar claims can help the employee show that harassment was part of the workplace environment. As the Johnson Court mentioned, “other harassment” evidence can create a fact question on the issue of pretext thereby helping employees survive summary judgment. Information about other employees’ discrimination or harassment is a viable source of information in a discrimination or harassment case. Plaintiffs should request (and fight for) that evidence from their employers.

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Breathes New Life Into Pay Discrimination Claims

“Ultimately, equal pay isn’t just an economic issue for millions of Americans and their families, it’s a question of who we are -- and whether we’re truly living up to our fundamental ideals,” President Obama said as he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law on January 29, 2009. “Whether we’ll do our part, as generations before us, to ensure those words put on paper some 200 years ago really mean something -- to breathe new life into them with a more enlightened understanding that is appropriate for our time.”

The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act removed several barriers that prevented successful pay discrimination claims. The Act is named after Lilly Ledbetter who worked as a production supervisor at a Goodyear plant in Alabama from 1979 until her retirement in 1998. Ledbetter received smaller pay increases than the male supervisors. That pay disparity grew throughout her 20 year employment. When Ledbetter retired, her compensation was 40% lower than the lowest paid male supervisor at the plant. She filed an EEOC charge in July 1998. Ledbetter eventually filed a pay discrimination lawsuit against Goodyear and was awarded more than $3.5 million. Goodyear asked the Court to set aside the jury’s verdict because Ledbetter’s pay discrimination claim was not filed within the 180 day charge-filing deadline. The Ledbetter case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court.

On May 29, 2007, the Supreme Court held that the charge filing deadline for pay discrimination claims begins to run on the date of the first allegedly discriminatory pay decision. The Supreme Court found that Ledbetter’s pay discrimination claim was untimely because she did not file her EEOC charge within 180 days of Goodyear’s first decision to pay her less than male supervisors. Justice Ginsburg writing for the dissent stated that “each paycheck less than the amount payable had the employer adhered to a nondiscriminatory compensation regime . . . constitutes a cognizable harm.” The dissent invited Congress to correct the Court’s Ledbetter decision, by writing “[o]nce again, the ball is in Congress’ court. As in 1991, the Legislature may act to correct this Court’s parsimonious reading of Title VII.”

Congress attempted to accept that invitation during the Bush presidency. But, the White House opposed the bill claiming that it would result in more lawsuits. The Obama administration and the new Congress felt differently about the Ledbetter decision. They believed the Ledbetter decision was unrealistic in its assumption that employees immediately know about pay discrimination. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009 became law on January 29, 2009. President Obama said, “It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign – the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – we are upholding one of this nation’s first principles: that we are all created equal and deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness.” The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act changed pay discrimination claims in the following ways:

• The Act amended Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act which means that employees can sue for pay discrimination on the basis of gender, race, national origin, religion, age, and disability.

• The statute of limitations for pay discrimination claims starts over each time the employee receives a paycheck, benefits or other compensation that is impacted by a discriminatory compensation decision.

• Any action that affects compensation (i.e., a performance review, denial of raise request, stock option award, etc.) can trigger a pay discrimination claim and a new statute of limitations.

• In addition to the other statutory remedies, a prevailing employee can receive “back pay for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge.”

• The Act protects individuals “affected” by a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice. The word “affected” greatly expands who can sue for pay discrimination.

• The Act is retroactive to May 28, 2007.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is still relatively new and its impact is not clear. However, recent pay discrimination decisions provide insight into how the courts will interpret the Act.

Courts are recognizing that the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act expanded the definition of “compensation decision.” In Mikula v. Allegheny County, the Third Circuit held that denying an employee’s request for a pay increase is a “compensation decision” and the statute of limitation will restart with each paycheck the employee receives after the denial of a pay increase. And, in Tomlinson v. El Paso Corporation, the Court held that a decision that affects the accrual of pension benefits is a “compensation decision.”

Courts also are holding that the claim must concern compensation to take advantage of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The Court in Rowland v. CertainTeed Corporation stated that “the Ledbetter Act does not help Plaintiff here because she pressed no discriminatory compensation claim with respect to her failure to promote.” Similarly, the Court in Richards v. Johnson & Johnson stated that “[w]hile the Act certainly contains expansive language . . . [it] does not save otherwise untimely claims outside the discriminatory compensation context.” The District Court in Leach v. Baylor College of Medicine ruled that “[t]he Fair Pay Act of 2009 only affects the Ledbetter decision with respect to the timeliness of discriminatory compensation claims. . . . The rules set out in Ledbetter . . . cannot breathe new life . . . into disparate treatment cases involving discrete acts other than pay.”

Finally, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act not only provides more opportunities to sue for pay discrimination, but it resuscitated many previously time-barred pay discrimination claims. In fact, both Mikula and Tomlinson involved pay discrimination claims that were time-barred prior to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and reinstated after the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, in restarting the statute of limitations with each paycheck or benefit accrual, gives employees a real opportunity to combat pay discrimination. And, there is pay discrimination. Women still earn only 77% of what their comparable male counterparts earn. And, college educated African-Americans and Hispanics are paid less than similarly educated Caucasians, 78% and 75% respectively. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act makes pay discrimination claims a real legal risk for employers which was not the case previously. Perhaps, that risk will help to close the pay disparities that are all too prevalent today. As President Obama said, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act “is an important step – a simple fix to ensure fundamental fairness for American workers.”

How to Survive the New Terror at Work: The Workplace Bully

Thousands of children are terrified to go to school because of a bully. Have you ever wondered what happened to the bully in your school? Well, that schoolyard bully grew up, got a job, and is now a workplace bully. She still uses threats, ridicule, and a negative disposition to terrorize those around her.

Workplace bullying is aggressive or unreasonable behavior designed to negatively impact or destroy a coworker. Workplace bullies can be managers, coworkers, subordinates and even clients. Workplace bullies are insecure people who attempt to mask their insecurities with control and domination. The target usually provides insight into the bully. Bullies often target people they envy, people who have the traits and talents the bully wishes she possessed. The bully attempts to destroy the more skilled and more talented individual to feel more secure in her employment. According to the Workplace Bullying Institute, the following are the most common tactics used by workplace bullies:

• Falsely criticizing the target’s work quality.
• Staring, glaring, nonverbally intimidating, and showing hostility.
• Discounting the targets thoughts or feelings.
• Sabotaging or interfering with the target’s ability to work.
• Ridiculing, undermining, screaming, and yelling at the target.
• Nitpicking and paying attention to unimportant details.
• Constantly reminding the target of mistakes.
• Threatening the target’s job, reputation, or work status.
• Abusing the evaluation process by lying about the target’s performance.
• Declaring the target “insubordinate” for failing to follow arbitrary commands.
• Assigning the target undesirable work as punishment.
• Creating unrealistic deadlines, duties, and work demands.
• Encouraging the target to quit or transfer or face more mistreatment.
• Ensuring failure of the target’s project by not performing required tasks, such as sign-offs, taking calls, working with collaborators.

Many employees do not report the workplace bully for fear that the behavior will worsen or they will lose their jobs. But, ignoring the behavior will not solve the problem. “Bullies don’t reform - ever,” says Bruce Taylor, owner and principle of Unison Coaching. “They may hide the bullying for a while, or they move on to another victim, but they won’t stop bullying.” Bullies enjoy bullying. Bullying is a personality trait which the bully has sharpened for years. It is her way of life now. The workplace bullying usually does not stop until the targeted employee resigns or is terminated. Gary Namie, a psychology professor at Western Washington University, says that “once the bullying starts, most can only stay 16.5 months because it costs them their health.” You can handle workplace bullying in the following ways:

1. You must perform your job well and make sure that others know you are performing your job well. Workplace bullying takes a tremendous emotional toll on the target. If that emotional toll causes your performance to deteriorate, then the bully’s baseless accusations of poor performance can turn into warranted accusations of poor performance. You cannot defeat a workplace bully if you are not performing your job well.

2. You should not internalize the bully’s attacks. Workplace bullies constantly criticize, ridicule, and disparage their target. That can beat the target down and cause the target to believe that the bully’s negative statements are true. The target must reject those lies.

3. You should gather your witnesses, coworkers, and friends for your defense. It is fantastic if you have individuals who can support your allegations. However, since 72% of bullies are bosses, there may not be anyone who will support you. Coworkers are rarely willing to take a stand against a boss, especially a bully boss.

4. You should avoid private interactions with the bully. Some bullies recognize that their behavior is inappropriate and refrain from treating you badly in front of others. If your workplace bully only mistreats you in private then avoid private interactions. Also, there will be witnesses who can attest to the bully’s behavior if the interactions are not private.

5. You should document the bully’s behavior. Your allegations will be taken more seriously when they are presented factually and not emotionally. You remove your allegations from the emotional realm when you approach your employer with fully documented facts, i.e., names, dates, witnesses, and details.

6. You should consider filing an internal complaint against the bully. You need to make someone else in your company aware of how you are being treated. You should make the complaint to Human Resources, a high ranking company official, or someone identified in the company’s complaint procedure.

7. You should consider looking for a new job. Workplace bullying typically ends with the employee’s resignation or termination. According to the Workplace Bullying Institute, “more than 80 percent of those bullied lose their jobs.” You should consider looking for a job so that you can leave on your terms.

8. You should consider filing an external complaint against your employer and/or the bully. Sixty-two percent of employers ignore complaints of workplace bullying. That means that your help will likely come from an individual or entity outside of your company.

Workplace bullying is four times more prevalent than illegal harassment. Yet, employers ignore most complaints of workplace bullying, telling the victim to “work it out” with the bully. The employers who react in that way do not appreciate the financial cost of workplace bullying and are relying on the fact that workplace bullying is not illegal. There are 16 States that are considering “healthy workplace” laws prohibiting workplace bullying but, to date, no State has made workplace bullying illegal. So, you should avoid describing your situation as workplace bullying. Instead, you should use terms the law recognizes such as harassment, discrimination, and hostile work environment. If your physical characteristics or those of your harasser make it difficult for you to make a viable harassment, discrimination, or hostile work environment claim then you should talk in terms of torts such as assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with employment. The Indiana Supreme Court recently decided Raess v. Doescher, a case many are calling the first workplace bullying case. In the Raess case, Joseph Doescher sued a surgeon who treated him poorly at work. The Indiana Supreme Court stated in its written opinion that “workplace bullying could be considered a form of intentional infliction of emotional distress.” And, the jury awarded Doescher $325,000 on his assault claim. There are legal causes of action which reach workplace bullying. You should use those legal terms and not “workplace bullying” when speaking to your employer.

Legal risk is not the only risk workplace bullying poses to companies. Workplace bullying presents significant financial costs to companies with respect to productivity, operating cost, and work quality. A University of North Carolina workplace bullying study found that 28% of targets lost work time avoiding the bully, 22% of targets decreased their work effort, and 12% of targets changed jobs to avoid the bully. Health care costs also rise as the target’s stress becomes a sickness or illness that requires medical treatment, sick leave, or FMLA leave. If the targeted employee resigns or is terminated, the company will incur significant costs in hiring and training a replacement and loss of company wisdom and experience. Human resources experts estimate that replacing an employee costs a company two to three times the lost employee’s salary. There is also the time and expense of handling internal employee complaints about the behavior. So, you should not discuss emotions or moral impropriety when you complain about workplace bullying. You should speak a language your employer will pay attention to and understand . . . legal and financial risk.

Social Networking Can Get You Fired

Social networking has exploded in recent years. Virtually everyone (even your employer) engages in some sort of social networking activity. Employers use social networking websites to learn more about their job applicants, employees, and the individuals who sue them. As social networking has increased so has the number of employees terminated for their social networking activities.

Two employees sued their former employer in New Jersey federal court earlier this year after they were fired for their MySpace activities. Brian Pietrylo and Doreen Marino created a MySpace forum to vent, complain, and make fun of their employer and supervisors. Management learned about the forum and terminated Pietrylo’s and Marino’s employment for violating the company’s professionalism policy. The Pietrylo case raised the question of whether an employer can terminate an employee for private statements made on a social networking website. Unfortunately, the Pietrylo case did not answer that question, leaving employees to wonder what social networking activities can result in termination. While there is not much clarity in this area, you should be aware of the following if you engage in social networking activities:

• You should not say or do anything in your social networking activities that you do not want public. You must realize that nothing on the internet is private. That is true even if your profile is set to private. For instance, I worked on a case where the plaintiff told his Facebook friends to lie to the EEOC and say that he was terminated because of his race. The plaintiff’s page was set to private leading him to believe that his communications were private. They were not. The EEOC dismissed the case when it saw the plaintiff’s Facebook page. You should not say or do anything that you do not want to be publicly available, because your information or communications can be accessed by current or potential employers, coworkers, recruitment agencies, government and law enforcement agencies, among others.

• You should assume that your employer is monitoring your social networking activities. It would be extremely difficult (if not, impossible) for an employer to monitor the social networking activities of all its employees. However, operating under the assumption that your employer is monitoring your activities will help you to avoid behavior that could get you fired. That tip may have saved a National Suisse employee’s job. Earlier this year, a National Suisse employee told her manager that she had a migraine headache that prevented her from using her computer. National Suisse allowed the woman to take a sick day to recuperate. Once home, the woman logged on to Facebook. National Suisse terminated the employee claiming that her behavior destroyed its trust because her Facebook activity unequivocally showed that she could use a computer. You should not make any comments, post any pictures, or engage in behavior that you do not want known by your manager.

• You should monitor what people put on your social networking page and say about you on the internet. The internet’s lawlessness has caused some to equate it with the wild west. The internet is lawless. You may conduct yourself flawlessly on the internet and still be harmed by a comment someone else makes on your page or a picture of you someone else posts. A forklift driver was terminated when his managers saw a video on YouTube of his at-work forklift stunts which included performing burnouts, wheelies, and crashing into stacks of pipes. The video was not posted by the forklift driver. It was posted by a coworker who filmed the stunts and thought they were “cool.” You should conduct regular internet searches to see what information is available about you. You should have negative or derogatory information removed.

• You should not disclose confidential company information. Employers terminate employees who disclose confidential company information on social networking websites. Last month, Barneys’ café terminated an employee for tweeting that an actress skipped out on her check. The employee did not mention the restaurant’s name. The employee was never told that he could not tweet about customers, was not asked to stop tweeting about customers, and was not previously warned that tweeting about customers was unacceptable and could result in termination. None of that stopped Barneys from terminating the employee on his first offense. You should not disclose your company’s confidential, private, proprietary, or privileged information on your social networking website or otherwise.

• You should know your company’s policy on social networking. On September 23, 2009, the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics reported that “social media has caught many employers by surprise” and company policies have not yet caught up with the explosion of social media use by their employees. There are some companies that have social networking policies. If your company has such a policy, you should know what your company says about acceptable and unacceptable social networking behavior. The lack of a social networking policy does not prevent you from being disciplined or terminated. Many companies that do not have formal social networking policies are using more general company policies to discipline employees for social networking activities. Companies often rely on their Confidentiality policy, Inappropriate Conduct policy, and/or Anti-discrimination policy in addressing employee’s social networking activities. In fact, two Burger King executives were terminated for their blog comments. Burger King did not claim the executives violated a social networking policy; rather, Burger King claimed that the employees violated company guidelines that prohibit employees from speaking for the company outside of official corporate releases, guidelines against disclosing information about private negotiations, among other guidelines. You should be aware of any company policy that deals with conduct or the disclosure of information before engaging in social networking activities.

• You should research whether your State has an off-duty conduct law. Employees can be terminated for virtually any reason provided the reason is not discriminatory. That general rule is changing in some States. Some States have enacted laws which prohibit employers from disciplining or terminating employees for non-criminal, off-duty conduct. For instance, New York has a legal activities law that prohibits discrimination against job applicants and employees who engage in lawful activities during nonworking hours. For another instance, Colorado has a law that prohibits employers from terminating employees for lawful off-duty conduct. The off-duty conduct laws have not been tested by an employee who was terminated for social networking activities. However, those laws would seem to apply to social networking activities which for the most part are not criminal. An off-duty conduct law should severely restrict an employer’s ability to terminate employees for social networking activities. You should determine if your state has enacted laws which prohibit discipline or termination for non-criminal, off-duty conduct.

Employees’ social networking activities are increasingly becoming the basis for discipline and termination. A recent survey found that 17% of large employers have disciplined employees for social networking activities and 8% of large employers have terminated employees for social networking activities. Those numbers will probably escalate in the future, especially given the growing popularity of social networking. So, you should continue to network on Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Twitter, but be careful because your social networking activities can result in discipline, up to and including your termination.

A Workplace Romance Need Not Be Career Ending

Workplace romances have become the hot topic since David Letterman's recent announcement that someone attempted to disclose his affairs with women working on his show. Workplace romances are fairly commonplace. Between 41% to 58% of employees state that they have dated a coworker. And, according to careerbuilder.com, 14% of employees state that they have engaged in a supervisor/subordinate relationship. You should know that a workplace romance can cause problems for you, your partner, and your company. There are some things you should do before beginning a workplace romance:

1. You should consult your companies employee handbook. Vault.com reports that 70% of companies do not have a formal policy banning workplace romances. That means that 30% of companies have such a policy. You need to know what your company thinks about workplace romances before you begin the relationship, because you can be given a formal reprimand, counseling or even terminated if your company prohibits workplace romances. Some companies handle workplace romances by separating the couple, i.e., placing them in different departments or work areas. You should not be the one who is moved if your romance is with your supervisor or someone higher than you in the corporate structure. That could be viewed as retaliation.

2. You should consider requesting that the reporting relationship be changed if your workplace romance is with your supervisor. There are many pitfalls in workplace romances between a supervisor and subordinate. You should think about how to protect yourself and your career before beginning the romance with a supervisor. One way to protect yourself is to ask that the reporting relationship be changed so that you do not report to the person you are dating. Changing the reporting relationship will protect you in two ways. One, the person you are dating will not have the power to discipline you or damage your employment if the relationship ends badly. Two, your achievements will not be discounted by your workplace romance because your achievements cannot be attributed to your workplace romance.

3. You should keep your romance out of the workplace. You may be dating someone in your workplace, but your romance should not be part of your workplace. You should maintain the same level of professionalism as you did before you began dating your coworker. You should not email each other on company computers or text each other on company telephones. You certainly should not engage in any displays of affection in the workplace. You should keep your personal life and your professional life very separate when you are dating a coworker.

Finally, coworkers engaging in a workplace romance can affect your employment. If a coworker begins a workplace romance, you should pay attention to see if your employment is being negatively impacted by the romance. If you are denied promotions, work assignments, or merit increases because of a workplace romance, you should consider raising the issue with Human Resources.