BlogLine

Legal issues with workplace romances: Why employers should take notice of the Astronomer CEO kiss cam scandal

7/31/25

By: Emaan Ali Bangash and Robert Chadwick

With the Astronomer CEO Coldplay kiss cam scandal taking the internet by storm, employers should take a good hard look at their workplace romance policies. Though most employers have anti-harassment policies, these policies only cover potentially unwelcomed romantic or sexual advances. They do not address potential issues that may arise when such advances are welcomed. Beyond the potential for internet embarrassment, tolerating a welcomed romance between a supervisor and a subordinate or lower-level employee can lead to a lengthy legal battle for an employer.

One of the most obvious issues with permitting workplace romances is the potential for favoritism, though circuits differ significantly on whether sexual favoritism of an employee, known as the “paramour theory,” violates Title VII. See generally Maner v. Dignity Health, 350 F. Supp. 3d 899 (D. Ariz. 2018), aff’d, 9 F.4th 1114 (9th Cir. 2021). Moreover, even welcomed workplace romances can sour and develop into costly retaliation, sexual harassment or hostile work environment claims. Whether or not they’re ultimately meritorious, the complex facts involved in such relationships make it difficult to determine what claims pass legal muster, taking significant time and costs to defend.

That a soured office relationship can easily become fodder for a sexual harassment or retaliation claim became clear for a male employee, who began a romantic relationship with his married female supervisor. Friel v. Mnuchin, 474 F. Supp. 3d 673, 693 (E.D. Pa. 2020), aff’d, No. 20-2714, 2021 WL 6124314 (3d Cir. Dec. 28, 2021). Soon after, the supervisor’s husband began harassing the employee, and the female supervisor began accusing the employee of things he adamantly denied. After he received a five-day suspension with no pay, the employee filed sex discrimination, retaliation and sexually hostile work environment claims. Though the court granted summary judgment for the employer, it held he satisfied three of the four elements of the McDonnell-Douglas test for his sex discrimination claim, only failing at the final element requiring evidence that other women received more favorable treatment than him.

In another recent case, a female probation officer had a four-year sexual relationship with a male judge. Starnes v. Butler Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 50th Judicial Dist., 971 F.3d 416, 422–23 (3d Cir. 2020). After their sexual relationship ended and she was hired to work in his office, the judge began cajoling her into sexual favors, flirting with her from the bench and asking her to film herself performing sexual acts. This continued until she switched offices.

When she requested to return to his office, the judge made her sign a waiver releasing his court of all claims against it, and upon her return, “she was denied her own office, overtime, training opportunities, and the right to serve on-call duty.” Upon letting her supervisors (including the judge) know she intended to file an EEOC complaint, she was immediately placed on a performance improvement plan. Though she ended up filing an equal protection claim based on sex, the court applied the Title VII McDonnell Douglas standard in finding she sufficiently demonstrated actionable discrimination existed.

Ultimately, these opinions confirm that allowing workplace romances can be risky, but precautions can be taken to mitigate many of the risks by creating anti-fraternization or employment relationship policies. Examples include requiring that a relationship be cleared with HR to ensure no conflicts-of-interest exist, reallocating a supervisor’s managerial and disciplinary responsibilities to another supervisor, or prohibiting relationships where it is clear the relationship has a negative impact on job performance. Though relationships cannot be completely eliminated, the potential negative legal implications can be minimized through these kinds of policies.

For more information, please contact Bob Chadwick at bob.chadwick@fmglaw.com or Emaan Ali Bangash at emaan.bangash@fmglaw.com.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.