> The rumor mill suggested either that he was having an affair with a particular lower ranking female or that he had been found to be sexually harassing someone

> The rumor mill suggested either that he was having an affair with a particular lower ranking female or that he had been found to be sexually harassing someone. This is the problem here, in your thoughts and in what you poster as a good policy on relationships among employees. There are mountains among a love affair and molestation. I firmly believe if a company takes action on employees for the former, it's a breach of privacy and human rights, whereas the former should be punished in different ways both by the company and by the state. > You need to make policies that protect the company from scandal and protect the other employees from potential predators. If you require everyone to prove "guilt" of something like rape, coercion or whatever, then the policy is broken. The line needs to be drawn at "dating." (for people with specific business relationships, such as boss-underling) This is pure prejudice at show. Rape and exploitation are criminal cases, not the company's business. After all, thinking the most banale way, the company can be sued for defamation and libel. And that's indeed it if there is no exploitation or molestation, that is if the "dating" is with mutual consent. > This is a problem space I have put substantial thought into, fwiw. This does not really mean anything, many people put substantial thought into developing ideas that later are proven to be wrong. Not all people are that good in starting relationships, but not all such people are creepy molests. It's civil to make an offer and to refuse and offer, and for someone to declare that a particular way their interlocutor engages in communication is unpleasant to them. It's nice to not be too much unmerciful in these cases because sometimes it's you on the less courteous side.