An uncomfortable but necessary issue to address
When it comes to workplace relationships, most employers sit in a grey zone. They know office romances happen. They know many people meet long‑term partners at work. But they also know that when things go wrong, the fallout can be legally and culturally devastating.
In conversation with HRD, legal expert Julian Arndt noted that key risk isn’t romance itself – it’s what happens when conduct becomes unwelcome or when power imbalances and conflicts of interest are allowed to fester.
“There are [plenty] of workplace relationships that occur, and [plenty] of people meet each other at work, and lots of people end up very happy meeting someone at work. I think the point is there are risks involved with workplace relationships, where they go bad or where advances aren't accepted happily,” said Arndt.
In that space between “fine” and “unwelcome” is where employers must be extremely careful.
Policies: why different countries aren’t the same (but still need structure)
In some countries, particularly the US, “no fraternisation” rules or outright bans on workplace dating are common in large corporations. In many other regions, however, that kind of formal prohibition is still the exception rather than the rule.
“It’s a very specific cultural approach, the idea of having formal ‘no fraternisation’ policies,” Arndt explained.
He noted that while you do occasionally see formal bans on workplace relationships, across the full spectrum of employers his organisation advises, specific “no dating” policies remain relatively uncommon.
Where employers around the world tend to be much more active is in the core compliance areas:
- Sexual harassment policies
- Bullying and harassment policies
- Training on acceptable conduct
- Increasingly, education around the positive duty to prevent sexual harassment
Arndt says many organisations – including smaller and mid-sized ones – are now making a “serious effort from the top down” to take sexual harassment seriously and to train staff on what is and isn’t acceptable, as well as how to respond if something goes wrong.
The key difference is that most of those efforts are framed around preventing sexual harassment and misconduct, not around banning consensual relationships.
“There is a difference between telling people not to sexually harass each other and telling people not to date each other,” Arndt said.
“For the most part, employers are serious about trying to keep their employees safe. But there probably aren’t that many employers who are actively trying to stop people being romantically connected. What they’re trying to do is stop people getting sexually harassed.”
The legal tripwire: When conduct becomes “unwelcome”
Legally, the line is much clearer than it feels in real life.
From a sexual harassment perspective, the issue isn’t that someone expressed interest or flirted.
It’s whether the conduct was unwelcome to the person on the receiving end. Once that threshold is crossed, the employer has a problem – regardless of whether there is a specific “dating” policy.
“As soon as it’s unwelcome, you have a problem,” he said. “Because as soon as it’s unwelcome, it can very quickly satisfy the definition of sexual harassment. And that applies whether you’ve got a ‘no staff dating’ policy or not.”
That means even in workplaces without formal romance rules, managers can’t shrug and say, “That’s their personal life.” If behaviour is occurring at work or spilling into the workplace, the obligations on the employer remain: keep workers safe, prevent sexual harassment, and deal appropriately with bullying, intimidation or victimisation that might follow.
Power imbalances and conflicts of interest: why senior/junior relationships are high risk
While any workplace relationship involves some risk, Arndt is blunt about the heightened dangers when there is a power imbalance – for example, a manager dating a direct report, or a senior executive romantically involved with someone whose pay, promotion or bonus they influence.
“In large organisations where huge power dynamics can be created, there really does need to be an expectation that senior management or more senior people are not going to be engaging in relationships with staff members,” he said.
This isn’t only about the potential for exploitation between the two people involved. It also raises serious fairness and governance issues across the wider workforce.
“In a big corporate environment, it’s a huge problem if people’s decision‑making is being affected by personal reasons that aren’t business related,” Arndt added.
For that reason, some sophisticated organisations – particularly at the top end of town – don’t just rely on generic harassment policies. They also set clear expectations about conflicts of interest and inappropriate relationships where one person has power over another’s career.
Why many employers still avoid explicit “dating policies”
If the risks are so clear, why don’t more employers implement explicit workplace dating policies?
Arndt says there are a few reasons:
- It’s personal and awkward: Telling people who they can and can’t be romantically involved with feels intrusive, and many leaders are hesitant to police employees’ private lives too directly.
- Reality vs ideal: “There is a way you should do things, and then there is the way the world is,” Arndt said. As a lawyer, he can stand up and tell people not to blend personal and professional lives – but in reality, people bring their “whole selves” to work and form connections.
- Focus on principles, not micro‑rules: Many organisations prefer to set broad behavioural expectations (don’t sexually harass, don’t bully, don’t create conflicts of interest) rather than itemise every possible scenario involving romance.
“For the most part, organisations want to tell people to do the right thing generally, rather than say, ‘You can’t date each other,’” Arndt says. “They’ll say: you shouldn’t sexually harass people; you shouldn’t really be blending the professional and the sexual. But formal ‘no dating’ policies – you don’t see as much of that.”
When office relationships go bad: ‘Most stories don’t have a happy ending’
The most challenging cases Arndt has seen aren’t the short‑lived flings. They’re the long‑term, deeper entanglements – often involving marriages, families or extended family networks within the same workplace.
These situations quickly move beyond simple relationship breakdown into allegations of:
- Bullying
- Harassment or intimidation
- Retaliation after a breakup
- Hostile work environments
For employers, the idea that “this is just their personal life” is not a defensible position if the conflict spills into the workplace.
“There are all kinds of obligations on employers to keep their employees safe at work,” Arndt said. “Saying ‘it’s just personal’ isn’t good enough in many contexts.”
And in practical terms? These stories rarely end neatly.
“Most of those kinds of stories don’t have a happy ending,” he explained.
“Most of the time, those employees don’t continue to work with each other for another 30 or 40 years. Most of the time either one goes or both go.”
What can HR and employers realistically do?
Given the legal and human complexity, there is no perfect, one‑size‑fits‑all policy. But Arndt highlighted several practical steps that can reduce risk:
- Take sexual harassment prevention seriously, not just on paper: Top‑down commitment is essential: clear policies, regular training, visible consequences when standards are breached, and real engagement from leadership. The new positive duty framework only raises that bar further.
- Set expectations around conflicts of interest: Even if you don’t ban relationships outright, make it clear that people must not manage, discipline, appraise or determine the pay or progression of someone they’re romantically involved with. Require disclosure and re‑allocation of reporting lines where necessary.
- Don’t try to personally “manage” messy breakdowns: When relationships deteriorate and allegations arise – especially where there are disputed accounts of harassment, bullying or misconduct – internal HR teams shouldn’t be trying to untangle it all alone. Independent third-party investigators or mediators are often essential.
- Acknowledge the reality, but be honest about the risk: Employers don’t have to pretend that no one ever meets a partner at work. But they should be upfront – in training and conversations – that entering an office romance carries real professional risk, especially where the relationship involves a power imbalance or could create conflicts of interest.
Workplace relationships are not going away. Nor is the legal and reputational exposure when they go wrong.
For employers, the question isn’t whether to suddenly police every flirtation. It’s how to build robust sexual harassment and bullying prevention frameworks, manage conflicts of interest and power dynamics transparently, respond professionally and independently when relationships sour, and ensure that no one is left unsafe, intimidated, or unfairly treated at work.
In other words, it’s less about banning love – and more about making sure that, when it appears in the office, it doesn’t come at the expense of safety, fairness, or trust.
