Is there still a line between your private affairs and accountability to your employer? In the age of viral videos and online sleuthing, what happens away from work can derail an executive’s career as quickly as what happens in the boardroom.
Just ask Andy Byron, the now former chief executive of tech company Astronomer, who abruptly resigned last week after being shown embracing the company’s chief people officer, Kristin Cabot, on the Jumbotron at a Coldplay concert near Boston. The pair’s frantic reaction after appearing on the big screen during a kiss-cam moment prompted Colplay’s frontman, Chris Martin, to joke that they were probably having an affair. As it turns out, that appears to be true. Mr. Byron resigned shortly afterward, likely to avoid termination, and Ms. Cabot was placed on leave.
Internet sleuths quickly identified the people in the video as Andy Byron, the now former CEO of tech company Astronomer, and Kristin Cabot, the company’s head of HR.
Screenshot source: https://www.tiktok.com/@instaagraace/video/7527910323681070367Supplied
The viral Coldplay kiss-cam video shows digital sleuthing can go too far
The fallout raises legal questions: when do Canadian employers have a right, or even the obligation, to intervene in consensual relationships between employees, especially senior ones?
When two senior executives are involved in an apparent affair, the reputational risk to their employer can be significant. It calls into question their judgment, integrity and values – and, by extension, their ability to lead.
Key figures such as a CEO or chief people officer are often closely tied to a company’s brand and public image. This places them in a fiduciary role, meaning they are legally obligated to prioritize the company’s best interests. If a fiduciary’s private conduct becomes a matter of public scrutiny, it can damage the company’s reputation, sometimes irreparably.
As a result, employers often react swiftly when executives face public allegations of misconduct or online shaming, even if unrelated to their positions. Despite that those allegations may later be disproven, damage or potential damage to a company’s reputation alone may sometimes be great enough to justify immediate dismissal, potentially without severance.
Even consensual office romances can lead to disputes, sexual harassment complaints or retaliation claims. Where one employee holds power over the other, such as in a reporting relationship or with influence over promotions or compensation, the employer’s right to intervene becomes more evident. These relationships carry a high risk of perceived favouritism during the relationship or retaliation if it ends.
Many companies treat such relationships between managers and subordinates as serious business risks and have established policies requiring disclosure so appropriate steps can be taken to protect the company and those involved from misconduct claims. Some companies even go further and prohibit such relationships altogether. If a company adopts such a policy, then any violation can be treated as a disciplinary matter and, depending on the circumstances and severity of the violation, can also lead to cause for dismissal without severance.
In the absence of a formal workplace dating policy, many companies have detailed codes of conduct that attempt to regulate workplace behaviour. Those codes of conduct are usually broad enough to capture situations of an actual or perceived conflict of interest, which can often arise when a senior employee becomes romantically involved with a more junior one.
In a high-profile case last year, the Royal Bank of Canada dismissed its chief financial officer for just cause after being tipped off to an alleged affair with a subordinate. The bank claimed she breached its code of conduct by engaging in an undisclosed personal relationship that allegedly resulted in preferential treatment, including raises and promotions. Both parties denied the affair and any favouritism, but the case will likely turn on whether the code of conduct was breached and whether the breach was serious enough to justify the bank’s reaction.
How employees respond to internal investigations also matters. When a complaint involves harassment, discrimination or retaliation, employers are legally required to investigate. That usually starts with interviews and fact-finding missions. If an employee is dishonest during this process, refuses to answer questions or retaliates against someone who made a complaint, that alone is often grounds for dismissal for cause without severance even if the initial infraction would not have led to that result.
The key takeaways for employees are that engaging in a consensual relationship with a colleague can become their employer’s business, particularly if they are in a senior role or are having a romantic relationship with a more junior employee.
Concealing that relationship, especially where it may give rise to a real or perceived conflict of interest or violates company policy, may be grounds for termination without severance. Employees in positions of authority and influence are held to an even higher standard. They must assume their personal and private interactions, even in a dark corner at a Coldplay concert, are not beyond their employer’s scrutiny.
Daniel A. Lublin is a partner at Whitten & Lublin, representing clients in workplace legal disputes. He can be reached at [email protected].
