The Business of Love

WASHINGTON â€”  As the Pentagon rethinks its rules governing military romance, the brass might ponder one California company’s experience attempting to regulate love in the workplace.

Citing an infraction of policy, Rohr Inc. of Chula Vista canned its personnel director and a lower-ranking manager after an eight-month office romance. Lots of companies might have objected to such a relationship, but in 1992 a jury found Rohr’s action unfair--and awarded $4 million--since the company had 34 other couples in its upper ranks that Rohr acknowledged were carrying on romantically.

Rohr’s case is one example of how civilian employers have stumbled trying to control office romance. Just as in the armed forces, civilian employers have been frustrated by the difficulty of enforcing policies that don’t violate privacy rules or basic tenets of fairness.

The military, which holds that battle-line discipline requires such restrictions, is now reconsidering its restrictions amid ongoing furor over Air Force 1st Lt. Kelly Flinn. Flinn, 26, the first female B-52 bomber pilot, is scheduled to go to court-martial Tuesday on adultery and other charges, although a settlement could put the matter to rest before then.

As more women have entered the services, the military has felt obliged to step up its policing of romance in the ranks. The military bars anyone in uniform from taking part in an adulterous relationship and prohibits “fraternization�--close relationships, either sexual or platonic--between different ranks.

Civilian employers once tried to do the same but have been in retreat for years.

Many companies have scrapped broad policies against consensual affairs, married couples and adultery. In their place they have often put narrow rules that discourage romance between boss and employee, and try to judge other relationships solely on the lovers’ work performance.

Even so, many end up quietly ignoring their rules when occasions arise.

“You can write any rules, make any regulations, but it’s not going to be effective--because you’re dealing with human beings,� says Cliff Palefsky, a San Francisco attorney. “You can’t regulate love.�

Through much of the 1960s, the consensus among employers was that workplace love was a mistake. A successful romance could breed charges of favoritism, and an unsuccessful romance could rend an office with squabbling and dissension.

No less than Margaret Mead, the anthropologist, called love at work a taboo.

When Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire and two-time presidential contender, ran Electronic Data Systems, he barred office romances and boasted of firing couples for adultery.

These days, EDS, sold by Perot years ago, discourages romances between manager and subordinate, but has nothing that qualifies as rules, says EDS official Diane Coffman. Indeed, about 10% of EDS employees are now married to each other, she pointed out, adding that EDS considers romance to be, in most circumstances, “not any concern of the company’s.�

Experts say one of the biggest problems is writing a policy that can be applied consistently to all--including those in the executive suite and the big producers that the company believes it can’t live without.

Inconsistency is a huge threat to any rules, because it can kill the morale of the rank and file, and can prompt juries to rule against management.

Robertson, Stephens & Co., a San Francisco investment firm, has a policy that strongly discourages office romances and declares that employees may be disciplined if a boss-subordinate relationship brings on a lawsuit.

But some legal experts say the policy may hurt company morale and could be rejected by a jury in a sexual harassment suit, considering that three top executives are married to women they met at the firm.

In an illustration of the weird twists such policies often take, Robertson, Stephens officials say that while they frown on office romances, they are all in favor of ones that succeed. “Clearly, if people have a . . . successful relationship, and they get married, more power to them,� says Dana Welch, the firm’s general counsel.

*

ABC, owned by family-oriented Walt Disney Co., has taken a public relations clobbering lately because of an acknowledged adulterous romance between news-division boss David Westin and former subordinate Sherry Rollins, an ABC public relations executive and the wife of GOP consultant Ed Rollins.

Oracle Systems, the software company, had a particular problem with romances because of its billionaire founder’s habit of courting subordinates.

Lawrence J. Ellison has acknowledged three office romances, the last of which ended in a long-running sexual harassment suit. (It was finally resolved with the complainant, Adelyn Lee, judged guilty of fraudulently creating an e-mail message to win her suit.)

Yet the damage wasn’t sufficient to convince Oracle to institute a policy. Company officials wouldn’t return calls to talk about their philosophy, but one former employee says Oracle believes such rules are “just too hard� to enforce.

Indeed, many employers resist policies on romance because they refuse to do the snooping required. In the Rohr case, for example, the jury found the company had gone too far in gathering information on the courting personnel officials.

Other parts of the work world ignore the problem altogether. Members of Congress, throwing their usual fear of bad publicity to the wind, regularly romance staff members, often marry them, and sometimes keep them on afterward in high-ranking positions.

Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II, D-Mass., after an annulment of his first marriage, has married his scheduler and kept her on in a $36,000-a-year position.

Former Sen. Jake Garn, R-Utah, married his top aide’s ex-wife, and kept the aide on his payroll. The two men both had pictures of the woman’s first son on their desks.

*

As in the civilian world, the military hears regular complaints that the investigators often go overboard in probing allegations of sexual misconduct.

Women caught up in investigations have complained that their past sex lives--including abortions and romances--are scrutinized. Flinn, for example, has objected that investigators gathered information on her method of birth control.

Just as in the civilian world, the military has struggled to figure out which superiors and subordinates are close enough in the hierarchy that they should be ineligible for dating. The Navy recently adjusted its rules to make it clear that all enlisted male and female sailors on the same ship were ineligible for dating, even where they weren’t in the same direct chain of command.

The frequent revisions of the military rules shows how difficult it is to be consistent. The Air Force has revised its rules on fraternization four times since the mid-1980s.

And now the Pentagon is conducting its review of the rules in part to figure out how to treat the policies of the Army, which, unlike the other services, allows dating between different ranks, provided they are not in the same chain of command.

The troops acknowledge that following the rules means interpreting some subtle rules. For example, for an officer to take an enlisted man or woman out to lunch once in a week wouldn’t suggest a close relationship, and wouldn’t violate the fraternization rules.

Twice in a week probably would, but what about twice in a month--or in two months? It is not as clear.

“If you’re spending too much time with individuals, you have to have a look at it,� says Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Mark Metoyer. “It’s a gray area.�

A selection of Air Force and Coast Guard personnel interviewed around Patrick Air Force Base, near Cocoa Beach, Fla., defended the military rules and the necessity of policing romance. While most expressed some sympathy for Flinn, they said they believed she knew the rules and would have to pay the price for her infractions if she were found guilty.

Yet one airman, Air Force Master Sgt. Sharon Coleman, acknowledged that the rules could channel romance but not suppress it. “You have to recognize the fact that when we go to work, we do not turn off our hormonal clock.�