Question: Mr. Jones and Ms. Meyers were employed by Lester & Meyer, PLLC, the only law firm in a small town in Oregon. After working on an employment class-action suit under FLSA for several years, Mr. Jones and Ms. Meyers grew closer and fell in love. They decided to marry, and both excitedly announced their intentions to the partners of Lester & Meyer, PLLC. Instead of being congratulated, the firm asked which of the two would resign following the wedding. Ms. Meyers was a partner and Mr. Jones was an associate, and, under the firm's antinepotism policy, Mr. Jones could no longer work for the firm. Additionally, the firm also had a nonfraternization policy, which both Mr. Jones and Ms. Meyers violated by dating. Mr. Jones is considering suing Lester & Meyer, PLLC.

Case Questions:

1. Does the antinepotism policy serve a valid purpose in avoiding favoritism or conflict of interest?

2. Does the nonfraternization policy serve an important purpose in protecting the firm from claims of sexual harassment?

3. Do policies that require one person to quit upon marriage have a disparate impact on a protected group?

4. Would the situation be easier to address if the couple lived in a town where many other law firms existed?

For additional information, see Love at Work, 13 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 237 (2006); Yuhas v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 562 F.2d 496 (7th Cir. 1977).