Office romances have always been a bad idea for a variety of reasons. They’re a potential human resources headache. They make things awkward for everyone else. They undermine legitimate employee accomplishments by feeding into whispers that someone “slept their way” to the top.
In the cleared workplace, they can also be particularly dangerous to one’s long-term career prospects.
That may sound melodramatic, but consider the variety of ways that an office romance can go sideways and the extent to which those scenarios could fit within the National Adjudicative Guidelines for Security Clearances.
For example: is the other half of your office romance a subordinate? Could you be accused of sexual harassment if a budding relationship doesn’t pan out? Might you and your paramour get caught misusing office resources or technology for furthering the relationship – or potentially even get caught doing the dirty at work?
Each of these situations, among many others, could call into question a clearance holder’s “judgment” or “ability and willingness to comply with rules and regulations,” both of which are key components of a security clearance eligibility determination. Many of my clients are shocked at just how broadly the Adjudicative Guidelines are written and the extent to which just about anything can be shoe-horned in under the particularly expansive “Personal Conduct” Guideline.
Unfortunately, federal agencies have learned in recent years that it’s a lot easier to get rid of problem employees by categorizing misbehavior as a security issue than it is to impose discipline in a traditional sense. Disciplining federal employees requires that agencies: justify the action using a complicated analysis of various criteria known as the “Douglas Factors;” demonstrate that the discipline imposed is on par with similar past cases by providing comparators; and (at most agencies) be subject to MSPB appeals for any action more serious than a suspension of 14 days or less.
Contrast that with security clearance revocations, which are often done quickly, with strict limits on due process, and with generally no opportunity to appeal outside the agency. Which would you choose as the employer?
Not to be left out, many federal contractors have also picked up on this trend and are now reporting minor human resources issues to the customer agency as “security concerns” in the hope that the government will axe the problem employee for them by revoking their security clearance. Office romances can often prove fertile ground for doing just that.
Outside of the cleared workplace, a job termination for any of the above scenarios still isn’t great news for future career prospects. But a clearance revocation compounds that bad news many times over by branding the individual as a “security risk” – a designation that can send future employers running for the hills.
One of my colleagues once described this phenomenon as “career capital punishment,” which I think is an apt description. That’s an awfully heavy price to pay for an office romance gone wrong, but it seems that many lonely hearts are still willing to risk it.
This article is intended as general information only and should not be construed as legal advice. Although the information is believed to be accurate as of the publication date, no guarantee or warranty is offered or implied. Laws and government policies are subject to change, and the information provided herein may not provide a complete or current analysis of the topic or other pertinent considerations. Consult an attorney regarding your specific situation.
