Lou Michels and Rod Satterwhite are partners in the Labor & Employment group at McGuireWoods LLP. Both handle employment litigation on behalf of employers, and advise companies on employment issues regularly.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 - Posts

Contracted to Love

There was a recent flurry in the mainstream media several weeks ago about so-called "love contracts" and their usefulness to employers. For the uninitiated, a love contract is a formal legal document that is signed by two employees indicating, at a minimum, that they are engaged in a voluntary and consensual romantic relationship and that they are aware of the employer's sexual harassment policy and its requirements for reporting a charge of sexual harassment or retaliation.

Some employers require these documents, sometimes known as "consensual relationship agreements" as a condition of continued employment for employees engaged in romantic relationships with other employees. The theory is that by disclosing the voluntary nature of the relationship, and the awareness of a means to remedy sexual harassment claims, the employer is somehow more protected from a later discrimination claim when the relationship goes bad.

On a theoretical level, I guess the love contract isn't necessarily a bad idea. But as a practical matter, I don't think it helps very much. For one thing, my experience is that the people who really need love contracts, usually people engaged in relationships that the employer would ban immediately if it was aware of them (think president of the company and a direct reporting subordinate), aren't willing to sign these documents because of the disclosure requirement. For another, given the nature of juries to believe even the most outlandish claims of intimidation, the limited protections that a love contract provides are easily vitiated by a claim that the victim was coerced into signing the document, or coerced into not reporting horrible conduct, or some combination of the two. And finally, although some employment lawyers believe that love contracts can help defuse problems arising in deteriorated superior--subordinate romantic relationships, I think the protection is illusory. Superior--subordinate dating relationships are fraught with problems that arise as much from the perception of other employees as from the participants in the relationship. Claims of favoritism, misconduct, and other juicy activities frequently run rampant through the workforce when there is an open superior--subordinate relationship at work. These claims frequently are cited as evidence of a hostile work environment, and in my experience are inevitable whether there is a document in place or not.

So before plunking down hard-earned human resource dollars to have someone draft a love contract for two moon-struck managers, think about what you're trying to protect, and whether it might be more effective to move one of them, or otherwise alter the employment relationship.

Waive goodbye to all that

It's not uncommon to see a federal agency such as the Department of Labor getting its wrists slapped by a federal circuit court over some aspect of the agency's own regulations. What makes a recent Fourth Circuit opinion interesting reading is the ultimate holding, which has to be of interest to anyone dealing with a Family and Medical Leave Act claim.

Concisely put, the Fourth Circuit determined that a Department of Labor regulation-- 29 CFR section 825.220(d) means exactly what it says, namely that employees cannot waive, nor can they be induced to waive, their rights under the FMLA. As I've mentioned before, no self-respecting employer wants to settle a case unless the settlement forecloses all other potential causes of action, in a so-called "general release". The Fourth Circuit's opinion provides a well reasoned analysis as to why the Department of Labor regulation makes it impossible for an employer to sleep well at night in a potential FMLA situation, even when the employer has a signed waiver of FMLA rights in its files. The only way an employee's waiver of perspective or pending FMLA claims can be effective is if the waiver has been approved in the same manner as a Fair Labor Standards Act waiver, that is by a court, or the Department of Labor itself.

What this means is that it is impossible, at least in the Fourth Circuit, to settle an FMLA claim without going to the Department of Labor (or a federal judge, if a case is actually been filed) and getting it to sign off on the agreement. More importantly, broad general releases of employment claims now have at least two serious holes in their viability in the form of FLSA and FMLA claims. Employers must note that these so-called general releases are not so general anymore with regard to payroll, attendance and leave of absence problems.