 |
| Justice Rames Rika made a landmark ruling on office romance (l). A couple hugging after making an achievement (r) (Photo for illustration) |
In a landmark ruling, the Employment and Labour Relations Court, led by Judge James Rika, has determined that office romance should not be subject to punitive corporate policies. . The case stemmed from the termination of a senior manager, MM, by a security firm for engaging in a relationship with a junior employee, which included allegations of sexual harassment and financial support for his partner.” “Romantic relationships at the workplace must be left to run their natural course. It is a foolish law or policy, that would seek to outlaw the affairs of the heart. Employers must leave Bill and Melinda Gates within their undertakings to grow and to find themselves in each other, while they continue to be productive to the business,” Justice Rika ruled. Why did MM sue the company?
MM took legal action after receiving a notice to show cause for allegedly instigating the transfer of a female employee with whom he was in a relationship. In his ruling, Justice Rika emphasised that not all workplace relationships can be classified as harassment. He specifically stated that giving a lift to a romantic partner does not constitute sexual harassment. “The respondent appears not to have drawn the line and fully appreciated the difference, between a sexual relationship and sexual harassment. Not every sexual relationship at the workplace is harassment,” he stated. The judge further noted that the company failed to provide a valid reason to justify the termination of MM’s contract. He stated that the requirements of Sections 43 and 45 of the Employment Act were not upheld. No law prohibits office romances, court rules
The court further declared that corporate policies prohibiting office romances are unconstitutional, underscoring the right of employees to engage in consensual relationships without fear of reprisal. This ruling reinforces the idea that workplace dynamics should allow for personal connections, provided they are consensual and do not disrupt the workplace environment. “The court is convinced that this policy is unconstitutional. Primarily, it is a serious invasion of employees’ privacy rights, which are protected under Article 31 of our Constitution. The Article states that every person has the right to privacy. Sexual relationships are private. The right includes the right against private affairs being unnecessarily required or revealed, and private communications being infringed,” Justice Rika added.
by Zipporah Weru Nancy Odindo