In the real world, it's not that easy. Things happen.
Also, it's probably illegal, or it wouldn't hold up in court.
VP of Customer Service falls in love with one of the help-desk assistants, they get married, VP gets fired - that's a lawsuit.
And that's assuming the "VP of Customer Service" has a negotiated contract in the first place. Most employees, even managers, don't have negotiated contracts; they have the default handbook contract, which I guarantee you restates and maintains the US default, which is termination at will.
Other appeals courts have ruled otherwise, but the 9th district court has had a couple of precedents in the past, according to the article.
Personally, I think it's an interesting issue. If the company fires the higher ranked employee, they are probably losing more value.
It's also interesting that I think everyone would agree that it would be absurd to fire any employee if they were a married couple - yet absent the (mostly religious and tax related) binds of marriage, there's some moral judgment cast upon the participants. It seems so puritanical and absurd. What if the two employees got married before anyone found out about the affair? I bet they'd be protected both legally and in terms of moral or business implications.
It appears many states actually prevent firing based on marital status: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111041550490175318
From that one, "One reason is that about 20 states and many cities ban employment discrimination on the basis of marital status. If a married employee who has an affair is fired and an unmarried employee who has an affair isn't, the fired employee in those states conceivably could claim illegal discrimination, attorneys say. Thus, many employers turn a blind eye to marital cheating."
Situation 1: Person A and B are married and have a sexual relationship. A is a VP, B is just a regular worker. Nobody has a problem with this, and policies generally don't have any problem with coworkers being married.
Situation 2: Person A and B are not married and have a sexual relationship. A is a VP, B is just a regular worker. Some people have a problem with this, and policies often have a problem with coworkers being married.
That's called discrimination based on marital status (or lack thereof).
You can't fire someone because they are black, or gay, or Mormon, or get sick - and probably not because they fall in love with each other either.
https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/what-are-c...
No way. Two people falling in love is not in the same category as someone saying public things.
It's in court right now.
And it always will be.
No, things don't "happen". People make them happen, and should own up to the consequences of their actions. If the policy is "don't", then you can choose to 1) do not, no matter how much you would like to; 2) move / leave so you can do freely; or 3) do and (if/when found) you get smacked in the face with the policy.
I can accept that google wants to avoid trouble at the work place and love dramas can cause trouble. And sexual harassment is already forbidden by law. But it is not automatically harassment when two consenting adults of different levels start a love affair mostly happening outside work.
This is as much google’s business as what sex I prefer, what party I vote for or to which god I may pray - none.
The protection against possible harassment does not justify to limit the freedom of adult citizens. For children the limits do make sense, though.
When there is no harassment claim and no other disturbance of peace at work the state should protect me against overreaching policies.
1 "don't be gay"
2 "don't fall in love"
1 is illegal obviously, 2 is legal?
Seriously?
Most states in the US are at-will employment. You can be fired for literally any reason whatsoever outside of a very very limited number of protections against discrimination.
Hooking up with a subordinate is not one of those protections.
Please provide evidence for your claim that it's illegal to fire someone for banging the help. In an at-will state, people can generally be fired for any reason or no reason as long as some specific employee protection isn't violated. I have worked at companies, including a publicly traded company, that have rules like that, and the didn't see any problem with it.
You're right that there could be a lawsuit. People can sue for anything. But it's much more likely that a company will see a lawsuit for failing to protect employees from predatory managers and execs. So if lawsuits are the problem, then this rule would be a huge help in reducing the total number, as well as the PR risk.
It also seems a little insulting to imply that women have no agency, but I’ll let them decide if they want to be offended.
I am not denying human relationships are nuanced. I am proposing a very simple rule, one that many companies already have on the books, because a) the deep ambiguity is managerially untractable, and b) as we see in many examples including this article, more nuanced rules are easily interpreted to let powerful men off the hook.
I am not implying women have no agency. There's nothing in this rule about men and women, or even about straight relationships. If you are inferring that women have no agency, maybe that's you.