Ethics

Touro University International

ETH 501

Module 2, Case Assignment

Dr. Steven Gold

Organizations walk a fine line between ensuring people productivity and interfering in the private affairs of their employees. A 1998 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management predicted that 55 percent of office romances would likely result in marriage, but that 28 percent of these office relationships may result in complaints of favoritism from coworkers, 24 percent in sexual harassment claims, and another 24 percent in the decreased productivity of the employees involved (Wilson). After careful contemplation of the deontological and utilitarian theories, I have determined that the rules and regulations restricting dating on the job are necessary in countervailing the employer’s legitimate business interests in avoiding unnecessary litigation and legal liability in maintaining a fair and professional work environment.

EMPLOYER’S BUSINESS CONCERNS

When defending its decision to regulate its employees' sexual relationships, management often points to its perception that such relationships will lead to conflicts of interest, favoritism, and inefficiency resulting from spending time and energy on non-work social activities, and reduced morale or jealousy of co-workers. However, by far, the greatest concern employer’s voice is that one of the parties, or another employee, will charge the company or one of its employees with sexual harassment. In a 2001 Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) survey, ninety-five percent of human resource professionals cited a "potential for claims of sexual harassment" as a reason to ban or discourage workplace romances (Pearce).

Under the guise of protecting their employees from sexual harassment, employers are continuously expanding their sexual harassment policies to incorporate non-fraternization clauses or other informal means of restricting and regulating intra-organizational intimate interaction. These policies range...