Authors

  1. Starr, Kristopher T. JD, MSN, APRN, CNP, FNP-C, CEN, CPEN

Article Content

WITH FEBRUARY being the month of Valentine's Day, I thought I'd discuss the office romance and its tendency to put people in legal danger. By some estimates, between 10% and 20% of adults meet their spouses at work.1 That's all fine and good, so where's the danger?

  
Figure. No caption a... - Click to enlarge in new windowFigure. No caption available.

Nursing is a professional avocation dealing directly with the health of your fellow humans. Compassionate objectivity is the public's expectation during encounters with any healthcare professional. Both anecdotal and legal evidence suggest that romance in the clinical setting can be fraught with unfortunate results, including perceived favoritism, nepotism, preferential treatment, and other Human Relations headaches. Power inequities between two participants can legally complicate the relationship and the corporate liability picture.

 

These delicate matters get even more complicated if the romance turns sour. Disaster can soon follow, and often does.

 

The AMAJournal of Ethics (formerly Virtual Mentor) looked at this very issue in a review of one hospital's efforts to control romantic relationships among staff.2 Due to many negative perceptions received by administration about romantic staff relationships disrupting the patient-care environment, one administrator sought to forbid all such relationships. As might be expected, the zero-tolerance proposal was met with swift and decided opposition.

 

Ultimately, four potential options were reviewed to manage the many legal and professional issues that arise when hospital staff engage in intimate relationships.3

 

* Ban all romantic relationships (zero tolerance).

 

* Address any relationships with a power inequity (for example, a relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate) but leave others alone.

 

* Let all relationships continue unless one or both of the participants are married to someone else.

 

* Examine each interpersonal relationship to confirm its consensual nature and to assure that it doesn't affect the conduct of hospital business.

 

 

The most legally dangerous interpersonal relationships occur in the presence of power inequity (supervisor-subordinate) with the appearance of impropriety potentially leading to charges of discrimination, unequal treatment, or even harassment, be it sexual or otherwise. Even the rumor of such a relationship places a virtual target on the backs of both participants and may expose the healthcare corporation to legal liability. In addition, interpersonal tensions created by such a relationship can make the unit environment unworkable. These concerns multiply exponentially if the relationship goes south.

 

Accepting that people at work have a statistical likelihood to become intimate and appreciating that no work environment is immune, many healthcare corporations have adopted a policy of nonnepotism (no family working in the same unit or supervising each other), voluntary disclosure of intimate relationships, and a review by administration and Human Relations personnel, if necessary, of personal relationships to assure equality in the workplace and a lack of preferential treatment. I've experienced these policies firsthand and find them to be legally sound and making good business sense. Employees who become involved with one another need to know their organization's policy and adhere to it.

 

In closing, I advise simply that the note of warning remains: Be exceptionally cautious with office or workplace romance. While it may be said "love conquers all," legally, I would recommend that all conquering be performed outside one's place of employment.

 

Until next time, keep it legal.

 

REFERENCES

 

1. Kelly M. How we meet our spouses. Wall Street Journal. March 27, 2014. [Context Link]

 

2. Cannada LK, Gremmels B. Zero-tolerance for hospital romance. Virtual Mentor. 2010;12(1):16-22. [Context Link]

 

3. Gregg RE. Restrictions on workplace romance and consensual relationship policies. J Med Pract Manage. 2004;19(6):314-316. [Context Link]