The Employment Consequences of Love on the Jumbotron
July 31, 2025
By: Colin A. Walker
It started innocently enough: on July 16, 2025, at a Coldplay concert, a man and a woman were projected on the Jumbotron embracing in an “awe isn’t that cute” moment. Turns out it wasn’t that cute because one ducked and the other fled the scene, leaving the audience and the members of Coldplay wondering what had just happened. It didn’t take them long to figure it out. Moments later, the lead singer of Coldplay observed to the audience, “Either they're having an affair or they're very shy!” Turns out the two were married, both were high-ranking executives at a large publicly facing company—he the CEO and she the Chief People Officer (now wouldn’t you think an HR professional would know better?)—and apparently the embrace was unauthorized by their spouses. What followed might be described as a media… frenzy (cleaned that up for you—this is an employment law blog)! Shortly thereafter, the company launched an investigation, and shortly after that, the CEO resigned. The Chief People Officer resigned shortly thereafter. Media frenzy and personal humiliations aside, this episode raises some important legal issues regarding romantic relationships in the workplace.
Romantic relationships in the workplace are common and not necessarily illegal or wrongful (in a legal sense). However, mixing work and romance can leave employers and employees in a complicated legal position. In addition to hurt feelings and bruised egos, this could lead to liability for employers under state or federal anti-discrimination laws. As illustrated by this case, it could lead to termination of the employment of one or both of the employees. See August 10, 2021 video blog post here.
Can an employer terminate the employment of one or both employees who are involved in a consensual romantic relationship? Many states, such as Colorado, have laws which prohibit employers from terminating employees for off-duty activities which are lawful. This, of course, would apply to a myriad of lawful off duty activities which might tempt some employers to terminate employment, such as smoking, drinking alcohol, and firearm ownership. It could also apply to consensual romantic relationships. If the lawful activity is conducted off duty and off the employer’s premises, it could be protected and not a lawful basis for termination. On the other hand, if it occurs when the employees are on duty, or on company premises, it would probably not be protected. Similarly, if it led to a conflict of interest, or an apparent conflict of interest, it might not be protected. Here, one wonders whether the concert was a business event. One might also ask whether the CHRO reported to the CEO (likely), and whether that created a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.
As observed above, consensual romantic relationships are not necessarily wrongful or illegal. However, often it is not clear if the relationship is consensual. This is often complicated if one of the employees is supervised by the other. In addition, sometimes a consensual relationship turns into a non-consensual relationship, often after the relationship has ended. Such situations implicate a number of legal issues.
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” 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 or bruised egos from the failed personal relationship between the employer and this particular employee, which is not a violation.
However, sexual harassment claim may be viable where an employee can show that unwanted sexual requests were made, 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 they 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 a flawed 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, romantic relationships in the workplace 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, to protect themselves from claims such as discrimination and violation of lawful off duty activities statutes. In addition to limiting legal liability, this may help the employer avoid an acrimonious, uncomfortable, and embarrassing situation.
I will close with a personal observation. The CEO and Chief People Officer on the Jumbotron did something that even they seem to think was highly questionable. They have paid a heavy price for it—including loss of lucrative employment. As for the rest of us, hopefully, we will learn some lessons from this, and not just the legal points above. Among other things, perhaps we should consider whether it is OK to publicly humiliate someone who has done something questionable. Lest we judge too harshly, remember… no one is perfect.