The Employment and Labour Relations Court has faulted employers for policing workers’ office relationships without clear workplace policies, warning that morality allegations and workplace gossip cannot replace lawful disciplinary processes.
In a judgment with potential implications for corporate governance and human resource practices, the court ruled that employers cannot discipline workers over alleged consensual office relationships without credible evidence of misconduct or proof that the relationships affected business operations.
This emerged as the court ruled that a Nairobi company unlawfully fired a senior female employee after weaponizing claims about her alleged relationships with younger male colleagues.
The court found that the employer failed to prove poor performance, misconduct or any workplace policy barring consensual relationships among staff before dismissing the employee named as Ms AN.
The court awarded the former sales and marketing executive Sh4.8 million for unfair dismissal, sexual harassment and workplace defamation.
It found her reputation was damaged after an internal email was circulated among the staff accusing Ms AN of maintaining inappropriate relationships with male colleagues.
In her claim, she had sought more than Sh27.5 million in compensation, including Sh10 million for defamation through internal email, and Sh10 million for sexual harassment.
She had also asked for Sh5 million for unlawful dismissal and discrimination, and 12 months’ salary compensation for unfair termination, alongside terminal dues and other reliefs.
The dispute arose after the employee accused a company’s director of subjecting her to years of unwelcome sexual advances and creating a hostile work environment.
Court records show the employee worked at the company from September 2007 until July 2023, earning a monthly salary of Sh196,400 at the time of her dismissal.
Lawyer Steve Kimathi, representing Ms AN, told the court that her problems escalated after a colleague informed her in April 2023 that management was investigating claims of a “special relationship” involving her and two male employees.
She accused the managing director of pressuring her to resign after she confronted him over alleged harassment.
According to the judgment, the company later accused her of poor performance, failing to submit reports and maintaining inappropriate relationships with younger male colleagues.
An internal email sent to the employee alleged she had “seduced younger male staff”. The email also referred to several male colleagues she was allegedly involved with between 2021 and 2023.
The court found the email went beyond legitimate workplace management and intruded into the employee’s private life.
The Labour Court has ruled that employers cannot discipline workers over alleged consensual office relationships without credible evidence of misconduct.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
“The tone and content of the email were demeaning, invasive, and unrelated to measurable employment obligations,” the court ruled.
“The allegations, for instance, that the claimant ‘seduced younger male staff’ were particularly humiliating and unnecessary in the context of workplace management.”
The court said the employer failed to produce any policy prohibiting consensual social interaction or romantic relationships among employees.
The court further noted that management admitted socialising among staff was not an offence under company policy.
“No evidence was tendered demonstrating that the alleged relationships negatively affected work performance or caused operational prejudice to the first respondent's business,” the court said.
The managing director admitted during cross-examination that the employee was never issued a notice to show cause and was not given an opportunity to defend herself before termination.
He admitted the company did not produce performance appraisal reports, targets, evaluation tools or evidence of a structured performance management system. He also admitted that socialising was not prohibited.
The court found the employer relied on unsubstantiated misconduct claims and alleged poor performance as a pretext to remove the employee after she complained about sexual harassment.
“The allegations of misconduct and poor performance were used as a pretext to justify the claimant’s removal following her confrontation with the second respondent over sexual harassment concerns,” the court ruled.
The judgment could trigger debate among employers, HR professionals and corporate lawyers over how companies handle office relationships, workplace ethics and employee privacy.
Many Kenyan companies discourage romantic relationships between colleagues, especially between supervisors and junior staff, but some operate without formal HR policies governing disclosure requirements, conflicts of interest or workplace conduct.
The court also upheld the employee’s defamation claim, finding the company unnecessarily circulated damaging allegations about her personal life within management structures.
It ruled that the accusations portrayed the employee as immoral and manipulative and were not supported by credible evidence.
The court awarded her Sh2.3 million as compensation for unfair termination, Sh2 million for sexual harassment, Sh500,000 for defamation and Sh20,000 transcription costs.
The court found that the employer violated the employee’s constitutional rights to dignity and fair labour practices.
“The claimant established, on a balance of probabilities, that she was subjected to a hostile and humiliating work environment,” the court ruled.
