How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question

Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 88819
Experience:  JA Mentor -Attorney Labor/employment, corporate, sports law, admiralty/maritime and civil rights law
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I live in NC an at will state. Company policy says no two employees

Resolved Question:

I live in NC an at will state. Company policy says no two employees may co-habitate nor get married. Company has allowed and new of two employees living together for past ten years now. Even gave them a chance to become married, but they couldn't work in he same department. They each loved their jobs so they decided to just live together an they built a 240,000 home together. I got engaged to an employee in an other department because we figured if it had been allowed for this other couple hen surely we could also. We were told we can not live together nor get married and yet the other couple is still living together and has not been told anything like we have been.
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 1 year ago.
Unfortunately, companies have these types of policies more and more frequently and they are not illegal to have. They can have rules stating married couples cannot both work for the company and they can have an anti fraternization policy, even though they may have allowed it for employees who were involved before they enacted this rule (as the constitution disfavors "ex post facto" laws or rules), but the fact they have grandfathered in some employees who were together since before the rule does not give employees who were not in a relationship prior to the rule the right to argue that the rule is illegal or unfair because there are others it is not being applied to.

Now, if the company is applying the rule unequally to couples who are getting together after the rule is passed, then you might have a claim against the company only if you prove their application of the rule is based only on age/race/sex/disability (unlawful discrimination) grounds.

These cases are very hard in an at will employment situation because the employers can have these types of rules and they cannot be challenged in court unless they are rules that discriminate on unlawful discrimination grounds. They are not telling you that you cannot get married, they are just telling you that if you choose to get married or live together both of you cannot remain employed there, so you are being given the right to choose (not a great choice, but choice just the same).



I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. Please consider that I am answering the question or question that is posed in your posting based upon my reading of your post and sometimes misunderstandings can occur. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered.

If you did not get all of the information you may have wanted PLEASE USE THE REPLY TO EXPERT LINK IF YOU HAVE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS AND NOT THE FEEDBACK BUTTON FOR BAD SERVICE. PLEASE CLICK ON “OK,” “GOOD” or “EXCELLENT” SERVICE. Kindly remember to ONLY rate my answer when you are fully satisfied. If you feel the need to rate anything less than OK, please stop and reply to me via the or REPLY TO EXPERT button with whatever issue or clarification you may need.

Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.

PLEASE NOTE WELL WE ARE DEALING WITH LAWS OF 50 STATES PLUS FEDERAL LAWS, AS WELL AS DEALING WITH OTHER CUSTOMERS, SO PLEASE BE PATIENT AND BE ASSURED YOU ARE NOT BEING IGNORED.

There can also be a delay of an hour or more in between my answers because I may be helping other customers or taking a break.

You can always request me through my profile at http://www.justanswer.com/law/expert-paulmjd/ or beginning your question with “For PaulMJD…”

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
This policy has been in place since 1987, since 2003 they have allowed these other two employees to live together, offered them a chance to get married, and the HR person even attended the house warming 2 years ago when they built a home together. My girlfriend and I were sort of basing our engagement on the company allowing this couple to violate this policy for the past ten years, knowingly...so why are we subject to different treatment??? Just because they don't want us to be married or live together... Makes no sense to me to ave an employee policy if its not same for everyone!! Please explain this a little better to me, I am confused!!
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 1 year ago.
If they are allowing someone to violate the policy, you can raise that as an issue with the employer, but the problem comes down to the at will employment issue and unless they are enforcing the rule against you based only on your age/race/sex/disability (unlawful discrimination), they do not need a reason to fire you. The fact they are not enforcing the policy against everyone DOES MEAN for you that if you are fired and they try to deny you unemployment benefits for violating the rule, they would not be able to do so because they have failed to fire others in the same situation and as such they could not prove your conduct was misconduct serious enough for termination, thus it would be considered a termination without good cause.

The policy may not be right morally they way it is being handled, but legally it is an enforceable policy and their unequal enforcement means you could win a claim to collect unemployment benefits, but not likely that you would have any claim to file in court against the employer to recover your job or damages.
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
I have worked here for 27 years, I don't want to go to court, I just want air and equal treatment like the other couple is getting. Th policy was in place before they started living together 10 years ago, just seems to me that there is a double standard here to start with Some have been allowed to live together which violates the policy that was in place nice 1987, yet when we decide to do the same an b legal and get married all of a sudden it's we are going to follow the policy now in your case
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 1 year ago.
I agree with you on this and I hate it when my employer clients have these rules and do these things because it puts them in a poor light ethically, but legally their position is safe because as at will employers the employees have no legal basis to sue them over how they enforce their policy as long (and I am not trying to be repetitive) as it is not enforced solely on age/race/sex/disability of the employees.

The only thing you can do here is send a letter to HR pointing out that the policy is not enforced and it was on that basis that you entered into this relationship and engagement and now they are seeking to enforce a policy that has not been enforced for over 10 years. You have the right to complain in writing to HR, but again as an at will employee that is all you can really do.
Law Educator, Esq., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 88819
Experience: JA Mentor -Attorney Labor/employment, corporate, sports law, admiralty/maritime and civil rights law
Law Educator, Esq. and 9 other Legal Specialists are ready to help you

JustAnswer in the News:

 
 
 
Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... Justanswer.com.
JustAnswer.com...has seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like justanswer.com/legal
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.
 
 
 

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
< Last | Next >
  • Mr. Kaplun clearly had an exceptional understanding of the issue and was able to explain it concisely. I would recommend JustAnswer to anyone. Great service that lives up to its promises! Gary B. Edmond, OK
  • My Expert was fast and seemed to have the answer to my taser question at the tips of her fingers. Communication was excellent. I left feeling confident in her answer. Eric Redwood City, CA
  • I am very pleased with JustAnswer as a place to go for divorce or criminal law knowledge and insight. Michael Wichita, KS
  • PaulMJD helped me with questions I had regarding an urgent legal matter. His answers were excellent. Three H. Houston, TX
  • Anne was extremely helpful. Her information put me in the right direction for action that kept me legal, possible saving me a ton of money in the future. Thank you again, Anne!! Elaine Atlanta, GA
  • It worked great. I had the facts and I presented them to my ex-landlord and she folded and returned my deposit. The 50 bucks I spent with you solved my problem. Tony Apopka, FL
  • Not only did he answer my Michigan divorce question but was also able to help me out with it, too. I have since won my legal case on this matter and thank you so much for it. Lee Michigan
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • Tina

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    8436
    JD, BBA Over 25 years legal and business experience.
< Last | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/MU/multistatelaw/2011-11-27_173951_Tinaglamourshotworkglow102011.64x64.jpg Tina's Avatar

    Tina

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    8436
    JD, BBA Over 25 years legal and business experience.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/RA/ratioscripta/2012-6-13_2955_foto3.64x64.jpg Ely's Avatar

    Ely

    Counselor at Law

    Satisfied Customers:

    19941
    Private practice with focus on family, criminal, PI, consumer protection, and business consultation.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/FL/FLAandNYLawyer/2012-1-27_14349_3Fotolia25855429M.64x64.jpg FiveStarLaw's Avatar

    FiveStarLaw

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    8189
    25 years of experience helping people like you.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/jespoag/2008-12-17_222355_jessepic.jpg JPEsq's Avatar

    JPEsq

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    2132
    Experience as general attorney, in house counsel, SSDI, Family Law attorney, and law professor
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/gsenmartin/2008-04-22_214950_me1.jpg Guillermo J. Senmartin, Esq.'s Avatar

    Guillermo J. Senmartin, Esq.

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    110
    7+ years of experience handling various legal matters.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/PA/PaulmoJD/2013-10-10_195858_JAImage.64x64.jpg Law Educator, Esq.'s Avatar

    Law Educator, Esq.

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    31621
    JA Mentor -Attorney Labor/employment, corporate, sports law, admiralty/maritime and civil rights law
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/dkaplun/2009-05-17_173121_headshot_1_2.jpg Dimitry K., Esq.'s Avatar

    Dimitry K., Esq.

    Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    15975
    Multiple jurisdictions, specialize in business/contract disputes, estate creation and administration.