Work Place Relationships and Employment Law
A recent Employment and Labour Relations Court decision clarifies that consensual workplace relationships are not automatically sexual harassment. This insight highlights the compliance lessons for employers on policy design, privacy, and fair discipline.
Author : William Ongoro
- [email protected]
- Rachier & Amollo LLP, Mayfair Center 5th Floor
Workplace Relationships and Employment Law
William Ongoro
Article Overview
This insight reviews a key Employment and Labour Relations Court decision that clarifies the line between consensual workplace relationships and sexual harassment. The Court held that an employer may follow a lawful disciplinary process, but still lose the case if the reasons for dismissal are invalid, especially where consensual relationships are wrongly treated as harassment.
The article highlights the constitutional limits on workplace policies that attempt to prohibit employee relationships, emphasising privacy, dignity, and the need for employers to focus on preventing exploitation and true sexual harassment rather than policing consensual romance.
“Not every sexual relationship at the workplace would result in sexual harassment.”
Key takeaways
- Core holding: the Court found the termination unfair because the employer conflated a consensual relationship with sexual harassment, even though procedure was lawful.
- Compensation impact: the Court awarded 12 months’ salary (Kshs. 3,244,800) as compensation.
- Employers cannot “police affairs of the heart”: blanket bans on workplace relationships were viewed as unconstitutional, implicating privacy (Article 31) and dignity, and the judgment links intrusive bans to Article 25(a) protections.
- Policy drafting burden: any limitation on privacy must meet Article 24 standards (reasonable and justifiable, with less restrictive means considered).
- What employers should regulate: the risk zone is when relationships become exploitative, abusive, or amount to sexual harassment. Employers must define harassment clearly and apply it contextually.
- Legal definitions matter: the insight references definitions of sexual harassment (including Employment Act, section 6) and notes supporting case law adopted by courts.
- Practical tools suggested: workplace romance guidelines, conflict management rules, restrictions for supervisor-subordinate relationships, and “love contracts” as a risk-management tool in some jurisdictions.
About the author
William Ongoro is a former Associate at Rachier & Amollo LLP. In this piece, he analyses the implications of MNM v G4S for employer policy, workplace governance, and the lawful handling of sexual harassment risks without violating employee privacy and dignity.