The legal phrase for showing favor in the workplace based on a romantic interest is called the “paramour preference.” The Supreme Court just rejected reviewing a paramour case, leaving in place a lower court ruling: under Title VII “sex” could not mean “sexual liaisons” and “sexual attractions.” This has been a common reading of Title VII on the paramour preference for decades. The plaintiff this time had hoped the more expansive reading under Bostock– which stated Title VII’s use of “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity– would help his case. Here, the lower court stated the issue of “sex” in Title VII is not relevant because: “The motive behind the adverse employment action is the supervisor’s special relationship with the paramour, not any protected characteristics of the disfavored employees.”
Title VII has been interpreted in broader ways in the decades since it became law but the paramour preference lives on (assuming there is no other discriminatory behavior). When LBJ pushed that sweeping civil rights law through in 1964, the workplace was different in many ways. What remains constant? Workplace romance and the paramour preference. Amor vincit omnia –love conquers all. And no, four years of Latin was not wasted, even if I had to check the spelling on Google. (Sorry Sister Justina).
Questions that are not about Latin? We can help with all your workplace law issues.