Apart from the well-cited reasons in the forum like to protect company in case of lawsuits filed for sexual harassment, issues of favoritism etc. there may be some broad issues at hand for which the companies might feel a need to regulate workplace romance:

· “What will be the effect of this behavior on the company and on its other employees?

o How to address workplace romances so that all the parties are dealt with humanely

o How to ensure that any condoned behavior does not jeopardize other people's professional careers

o How to prevent employees from using rank and power to trap others into relationships they do not want?” (Reference: http://www.financialexpress.com/old/fe/daily/19981101/30555154.html)

Options Available to Companies: The following are some of the many options available to companies for regulating work place romance:

1. Do not have any policy for it: In this case, companies rely on its anti-harassment and antidiscrimination policies to protect both the employees and its own interests. But in 1998, US Supreme Court passed two decisions in which the employer was automatically held liable for a supervisor’s sexual harassment for a subordinate.

2. Anti-nepotism Policy:

• · Prohibits spouses or relatives from working at the same company or prohibits employees from supervising colleagues who are related to them either by blood or by marriage.
• · Effective in reducing problems created by favoritism or employees' perceptions of favoritism
• · Doesn’t address relationships between employees who are not married or are not related by blood.
• · Company may face issues of sexual discrimination.

3. No Dating Policy:

• · Anti-fraternization Policy
• · Prohibits dating altogether and prohibits dating between supervisors and subordinates
• · Are difficult to define

4. Notification Policy:

• · Requires employees to report their decision to enter into a consensual romantic relationship to a designated company representative
• · Requires employees to notify the end of relationship.
• · The designated company representative can’t disclose the existence of relationship to others in order to protect employee privacy, unless its necessary to respond to complaints about discrimination, favoritism or from problems arising due to the behavior of employees engaged in the relationship.
• · Company can be protected from litigation if case of sexual harassment arises.

5. Love Contracts: A lot has already been said in the forum about love contracts. Love contracts are voluntary in nature i.e., a company can’t force an employee to sign a love contract. Secondly, the employees involved should be given enough time to review and think over the terms of the agreement and to ask questions. As we see this wasn’t there in case of Pritam and Jagruti. Pritam was asked to sign the agreement first and read it later. And one of them was asked to put down his/her papers in case Pritam do not sign the agreement. The GM (HR) specifically mentioned that he would prefer Jagruti to put down her papers. This may bring trouble for the firm as this can be viewed as discrimination against employees and is not in line with equal employment opportunity law. Therefore, firms should be very careful while using love contracts. The employer must also ensure that the employee understands the company's sexual harassment policy and policy against discrimination. However, there are no clues in Pritam and Jagruti case whether this was made sure by GM(HR) before asking them to sign the agreement.

As pointed out by Sushma, that the company does not become free from litigation possibilities even with a love contract in place. But having a love contract in place shows that the company took steps to ensure that the work place was free from sexual harassment and retaliation. It also affirms that both the employees were aware of the existence of company’s policy on prohibiting sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation and they were obliged to abide by it.

Love Contracts should not be used in each and every case. It is most useful in a supervisor and subordinate relationship. Moreover, a company should use these contracts only when appropriate because it might otherwise give an impression that these relationships are company sanctioned.