Recruitment and selection law for local government employers - Page 167 |
Previous | 167 of 464 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Chapter 4: Personnel Policies Related to Recruitment and Selection | 151
4.2 Anti-Nepotism Policies
Many North Carolina local governments and community colleges have adopted anti-nepotism policies that either prohibit the organization from employing two members of the same family or prohibit one family member from being employed in a position that supervises or manages another family member. The primary reasons that employers adopt anti-nepotism policies are (1) to avoid conflicts of interest, favoritism, or the appearance of favoritism; and (2) to avoid the negative effect on workplace morale that employing two members of the same family might generate either because of their special bond or because family conflict may sometimes carry over into the workplace. Anti-nepotism policies of both types have been challenged under both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII. The courts have generally found anti-nepotism policies lawful except where they have been applied in a discriminatory manner.
The situations that seem to give rise most frequently to applicant and employee complaints and result in legal challenges involve the marriage relationship. Woodard v. County of Wilson, a 2010 case from the Fourth Circuit, is typical of such challenges. The plaintiff in the case was a social worker with Wilson County, North Carolina. The county’s anti-nepotism policy prohibited “two members of an immediate family” from being employed within the same department; the policy defined “immediate family” to include sons-in-law and daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law and fathers-in-law. Several years after she was hired, the plaintiff began to date a man whose mother also worked at the Wilson County Department of Social Services, albeit in a custodial rather than a social services position. After the plaintiff’s marriage, the county terminated her employment (but not that of her mother-in-law, who had worked there longer and who had not, as the county explained, taken the action that initiated the policy conflict). The plaintiff filed suit, claiming that the county’s policy violated the Equal Protection Clause by burdening her fundamental right to marriage. The plaintiff argued that the burdening of a fundamental right required analysis under the strict scrutiny standard.33
The Fourth Circuit held that government may legitimately impose reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to marry, in which case the regulation is entitled only to rational basis
33. See Woodard v. Cnty. of Wilson, 393 F. App’x 125, 126–28 (4th Cir. 2010).
Object Description
Description
| Title | Recruitment and selection law for local government employers - Page 167 |
| Full Text | Chapter 4: Personnel Policies Related to Recruitment and Selection | 151 4.2 Anti-Nepotism Policies Many North Carolina local governments and community colleges have adopted anti-nepotism policies that either prohibit the organization from employing two members of the same family or prohibit one family member from being employed in a position that supervises or manages another family member. The primary reasons that employers adopt anti-nepotism policies are (1) to avoid conflicts of interest, favoritism, or the appearance of favoritism; and (2) to avoid the negative effect on workplace morale that employing two members of the same family might generate either because of their special bond or because family conflict may sometimes carry over into the workplace. Anti-nepotism policies of both types have been challenged under both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII. The courts have generally found anti-nepotism policies lawful except where they have been applied in a discriminatory manner. The situations that seem to give rise most frequently to applicant and employee complaints and result in legal challenges involve the marriage relationship. Woodard v. County of Wilson, a 2010 case from the Fourth Circuit, is typical of such challenges. The plaintiff in the case was a social worker with Wilson County, North Carolina. The county’s anti-nepotism policy prohibited “two members of an immediate family” from being employed within the same department; the policy defined “immediate family” to include sons-in-law and daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law and fathers-in-law. Several years after she was hired, the plaintiff began to date a man whose mother also worked at the Wilson County Department of Social Services, albeit in a custodial rather than a social services position. After the plaintiff’s marriage, the county terminated her employment (but not that of her mother-in-law, who had worked there longer and who had not, as the county explained, taken the action that initiated the policy conflict). The plaintiff filed suit, claiming that the county’s policy violated the Equal Protection Clause by burdening her fundamental right to marriage. The plaintiff argued that the burdening of a fundamental right required analysis under the strict scrutiny standard.33 The Fourth Circuit held that government may legitimately impose reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to marry, in which case the regulation is entitled only to rational basis 33. See Woodard v. Cnty. of Wilson, 393 F. App’x 125, 126–28 (4th Cir. 2010). |
