In recent days, a headline has sparked debate across the media and social networks: “Love banned in the boss’s office.” The news concerns the dismissal of the Chief Executive Officer of Nestlé in France, but the underlying question goes much further: can a company restrict or even sanction its directors and employees for maintaining a romantic relationship at work?
This case has brought to the forefront a sensitive issue: the coexistence of workers’ private lives with the employer’s powers of control. Where are the limits? What does Spanish law say?
At Conesa Legal, we analyse this matter from both a legal and practical perspective, to clarify what a company may regulate and which rights protect employees in Spain.
In this video, Josep Conesa, employment lawyer, analyses the dismissal of Nestlé’s CEO in France and explains the differences between commercial contracts and employment contracts in Spain. He also addresses what a company may – and may not – regulate with regard to romantic relationships in the workplace, and reviews the most recent case law from the Supreme Court.
The key lies in distinguishing between an employment relationship and a commercial/business relationship:
Chief Executive Officer / director (administrador): their link with the company is commercial. In such cases, it is indeed possible to include clauses in contracts that limit certain behaviours or situations, including those relating to personal relationships within the organisation.
Employees and managers: in Spain, the relationship is employment-based and here the law is unequivocal: romantic relationships between employees cannot be prohibited, even if a hierarchical relationship exists.
Any clause in an employment contract which seeks to restrict the personal or romantic life of an employee will be deemed null and void.
Although love in the workplace is not prohibited, companies are obliged to ensure such relationships do not adversely affect workplace dynamics. This means they may intervene when:
A relationship generates favouritism or conflicts within the team.
It leads to harassment, abuse of power, or workplace bullying.
The relationship breaks down and tensions arise that affect the working environment.
In such cases, the employer is under a duty to guarantee a healthy working environment, to protect the more vulnerable party, and to prevent the situation from having a negative impact on performance.
In recent case law, the courts have repeatedly held that an employee’s private life lies outside the employer’s disciplinary powers, unless there is a direct and relevant connection with the employment relationship.
A paradigmatic example is the STSJ Cantabria, Employment Chamber, No. 603/2014, of the 31st of July 2014 (rec. 534/2014, Cendoj 39075340012014100494). In this case, the dismissal of an executive was declared null where the real reason was his romantic relationship with a subordinate. The court held that there had been an unlawful intrusion into the fundamental right to privacy, recalling that a private relationship is not prohibited by law and can only be sanctioned if it objectively affects job performance (e.g. conflicts of interest, favouritism, etc.).
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this doctrine regarding the worker’s “personal sphere”. For instance, in STS (Chamber IV) 21-09-2017, No. 699/2017, rec. 2397/2015, ECLI: ES:TS:2017:3592, it reiterated that acts occurring outside working hours and the workplace can only be sanctioned if they have a real impact on the employment relationship.
In the same vein, STS (Chamber IV) 25-05-2023, No. 380/2023, rec. 2339/2022, ECLI: ES:TS:2023:2293, declared inadmissible evidence obtained by photographs taken by a private detective in a worker’s garden during sick leave. The Supreme Court stressed that this space formed part of intimate, personal, and family life and was therefore protected against any business intrusion.
Taken together, this case law confirms that respect for the worker’s privacy and private life constitutes an insurmountable limit on the company’s disciplinary powers.
This is not an isolated phenomenon. The CEO of McDonald’s in the United States was dismissed for maintaining a relationship with an employee. However, since his relationship with the company was based on a commercial contract, the company had broader discretion.
In Spain, if the same case were to arise under an employment contract, the conclusion would be different: romantic relationships belong to the employee’s personal sphere and are only relevant if they affect performance or generate an actual workplace conflict.
The message is clear:
In commercial relationships (such as that of a Chief Executive Officer), clauses restricting such situations may exist. It is necessary to draft these limits in protocols or contractual clauses of the commercial contract that governs the relationship of a Director or Chief Executive with the employees. At Conesa Legal, our lawyers can assist companies in structuring and defining the commercial relationships of board members within the company.
In employment relationships, the employer cannot prohibit romance. Neither the Workers’ Statute nor any other labour law restricts romantic relationships within the company, as they fall within the employee’s personal sphere. The employer may only act if a demonstrable negative impact on the workplace or performance exists.
In any case, managing such situations requires empathy, proportionality, and specialised legal advice.
At Conesa Legal, we're prepared to advise both companies and employees when conflicts arise at the boundary between the personal and the professional.