The Federal District Court for New Jersey held that a male employee did not suffer gender discrimination when his supervisor gave preferential treatment to a female employee with whom the supervisor was romantically involved. The Court did note, however, that had the sexual favoritism been more severe or pervasive, it could have created a hostile work environment.

“When an employer discriminates in favor of a paramour, such an action is not sex-based discrimination, as the favoritism, while unfair, disadvantages both sexes alike for reasons other than gender.” However, sexual favoritism may be the basis for a Title VII hostile work environment claim “if favoritism based upon the granting of sexual favors is widespread in a workplace…, regardless of whether any objectionable conduct is directed at [the victim].” Specifically, the sexual favoritism must be severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile environment. Here, that was not the case. As a result, the District Court dismissed the employee’s claims of gender discrimination and hostile work environment under Title VII and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”).

Employers Take Heed

Be wary of office romances, especially those that involve employees in the same chain of command. If the relationship results in favoritism in the workplace, it may rise to the level of a hostile work environment for other employees. If the relationship sours, it may lead to a direct claim of quid pro quo or hostile work environment by the jilted paramour. Either way, the employer is at risk.

BadrinAuth v. MetLife Corp., No. 04-2552 (D.N.J. February 3, 2006).