Why should it be the manager who gets moved and not the subordinate? The manager is almost by definition more important to the company, and it's a consensual re

Why should it be the manager who gets moved and not the subordinate? The manager is almost by definition more important to the company, and it's a consensual relationship that both agreed to and both knew the rules. Blakeley is claiming her career was damaged here, but what does she think should have happened? That Drummond's career was damaged instead? If you accept the principle people shouldn't report directly to their love partners, one of them has to change job and it's entirely reasonable to assume that the one lower on the rungs has less impact from moving (on everyone else). The alternative is to fire both if they have a relationship even if there's nothing wrong with their work or the relationship itself, which would be extreme and cruel. This looks a lot like a repeat of the Rubin affair. Colleagues in a happy relationship. Relationship goes wrong, woman tries to drag Google corporate into it, presumably to gain some sort of advantage. It's not really any of their business.