Breaking Up is Hard to Do
December 10, 2025
By: Colin A. Walker
Romantic relationships are not uncommon in the workplace today, but mixing work and romance can leave employers in a complicated legal position. In addition to hurt feelings and bruised egos, Colorado employers may be liable under state or federal anti-discrimination laws. When the intimate relationship has run its course, but the employment relationship hasn’t, an employer in this context should tread carefully.
If things have become uncomfortable, awkward or unproductive, can the employer separate one or both of the employees who were involved in the relationship? In Angel v. Rayl, 2005 WL 6208024, two co-workers, one of them the owner of the business, embarked upon what the employee acknowledged was, initially at least, a consensual, intimate affair. Later, the employee terminated the romantic relationship. After the termination of the affair, the plaintiff met with the employer and the employer’s wife. The employer’s wife indicated that she was fully advised as to the affair, but that she forgave the employer and the employee. The employee and the employer acknowledged that the employer would never divorce his wife. In the days that followed, the employee claimed that the employer suggested they rekindle the relationship. After the employee rejected these invitations, the employer terminated the employee.
The court explained that “sex,” in this context, is synonymous with “gender,” that the plaintiff is a woman, and not “sexual activity” in general. The court stated, “In the general context of workplace affairs, when the affair was consensual, at least to begin with, the question is whether the subordinate employee was discharged “because of” her/his “gender,” which would be a violation of anti-discrimination laws, or whether the employee was discharged of hurt feelings, bruised egos, etc. from the failed personal relationship between the employer and this particular employee, which is not a violation.
However, a “quid pro quo” claim may be viable where an employee can show that unwanted sexual requests were made after the affair ended, and that rejection of those requests caused the adverse action. Quid pro quo harassment occurs when tangible job benefits are conditioned on an employee's submission to conduct of a sexual nature and adverse job consequences result from the employee's refusal to submit to the conduct.
In Keppler v. Hinsdale Township High School, 715 F. Supp. 862 (N.D. Ill., 1989), the court held that, after a failed consensual relationship, a presumption arises that the employer acted not on the basis of gender, but on the basis of the failed personal relationship. That presumption can, however, be rebutted by showing that the employer “demanded” further sexual relationships before taking the action that he did. The court held that a plaintiff could not maintain a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim when the allegedly discriminatory acts were based upon plaintiff's status as the harasser's former lover, not her gender. The court held that because the employer merely held a grudge from the breakup of the former relationship, he was not discriminating based upon sex.
However, Schrader v. E.G. & G., Inc., 953 F. Supp. 1160, 1166-67 (D. Colo. 1997), rejected Keppler. Instead, the Schrader court held that “to assume as a matter of law that conditioning benefits on the continuation of a relationship is discrimination predicated not on the basis of gender, but on the basis of the failed interpersonal relationship is as flawed a proposition. Schrader did agree that ending the employment relationship based on such things as hurt feelings and bruised egos, alone, would not constitute sex-based discrimination.
As can been seen, separating an employee after the end of a romantic relationship can be tricky. However, an employer does have options to put an end to an uncomfortable, unproductive situation. While it may be possible to terminate an employee if it is based on hurt feelings and discomfort, and not quid pro quo sexual harassment or gender-based discrimination, Employers facing this situation should seriously consider obtaining a separation agreement with a release in exchange for a severance payment to the employee. In addition to limiting legal liability, this may help the employer avoid an acrimonious and embarrassing situation.