[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-145014-105":59,"doc-detail-145014-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","paramour-favoritism-in-the-college-workplace-overview-of-case-law-and-policy","Paramour Favoritism in the College Workplace - Overview of Case Law and Policy","","Paramour favoritism in college and university workplaces is examined through leading case law and EEOC guidance. The discussion explains how courts have generally rejected the idea that Title VII categorically forbids favoritism involving a romantic partner. It summarizes the DeCintio v. Westchester County Medical Center reasoning and contrasts arguments about gender-based disadvantage, including the “same fate” approach. It also outlines the 1990 EEOC policy guidance covering isolated instances, coercion or benefit access, and potential hostile work environment implications.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/paramour-favoritism-in-the-college-workplace-overview-of-case-law-and-policy/145014/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/paramour-favoritism-in-the-college-workplace-overview-of-case-law-and-policy/145014.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Skyler","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-06","2026-08-26",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":44},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Is paramour favoritism illegal under Title VII in college workplaces?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Courts have largely rejected the view that Title VII automatically forbids sexual favoritism as such. Many decisions treat employer-partner favoritism as not necessarily sex-based discrimination when similarly situated employees of both genders face the same outcome.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What did DeCintio v. Westchester County Medical Center hold about paramour favoritism?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The Second Circuit reversed Title VII liability, concluding the conduct was unfair but did not violate Title VII because the plaintiffs were discriminated against due to a preference for the supervisor’s paramour, not because of their sex.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What guidance did the EEOC provide in 1990 on sexual favoritism?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The EEOC stated that isolated instances of paramour favoritism, without factors showing sexual harassment, do not violate Title VII. It also noted liability could arise when relationships involve coercion or when a particular sex must obtain a benefit through the relationship, and that widespread sexual-favor favoritism may be tantamount to a hostile work environment.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},145014,1787714394,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":44,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144},2336464648746,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","TOPIC:  \nPARAMOUR FAVORITISM IN THE COLLEGE WORKPLACE  \nINTRODUCTION:  \nIn April of this year, in a much-publicized story, the University of Arkansas fired its head football coach, Bobby Petrino, for “unfairly hiring his mistress and intentionally misleading his boss about everything from their relationship to her presence at the motorcycle accident that ultimately cost him his $3.5 million-per-year job.” [1] The University discovered that the coach had hired the young woman with whom he had been having an affair for the position of student-athlete development coordinator, selecting her over 159 other applicants for the position just sixteen days after it was posted – much quicker than the University’s normal thirty-day hiring process. [2] In May, the University of California at Berkeley faced a similar incident and fired a former vice chancellor who had tripled the pay of her subordinate – and secret lover – from $41,000 to $120,000 in just five years. [3]  \nIf you ask a busy college or university administrator whether this type of favoritism – namely, hiring or promoting a paramour [4] – is illegal, he or she might understandably respond: “Of course! It is unfair and it must be illegal!” This is a widely held and logical point of view; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, and sexual favoritism seems to inherently discriminate against others based to some degree on their sex. [5] Nonetheless, almost all courts considering the sexual favoritism issue have rejected the idea that Title VII forbids sexual favoritism as such.” [6] Claims by co-workers who are not treated as favorably as an employer’sparamour typically do not implicate Title VII’s protections because those co-workers suffer the same results of unfair favoritism whether they are male or female. [7]  \nMore than twenty years ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) addressed paramour favoritism and provided direction in a policy guidance statement. [8] Soon thereafter, researchers began noting the problem in the literature concerning sexual harassment, [9] and research and discussion of sexual favoritism continues through today in law firms, [10] law review articles, [11] and the professional media. [12] Additionally, numerous cases – some involving colleges and universities – have reached the courts through the years and, although most of these decisions hold that there is no liability under Title VII for paramour favoritism, plaintiffs have explored various avenues to attempt to prove damages for employment discrimination.  \nWhile hiring or promoting a paramour may not be clearly illegal under Title VII, there are powerful reasons why colleges and universities may wish to draft a policy to discourage, prohibit, or at least manage such actions. This NACUANOTE will address the current state of the law and provide policy considerations for addressing potential cases of paramour favoritism in the workplace.  \nDISCUSSION:  \nParamour Favoritism: Overview of Case Law and Policy  \nA. Paramour Favoritism in the Employment Context  \nThe first appellate court to address “paramour favoritism” was the Second Circuit in DeCintio v. Westchester County Medical Center. [13] Seven male respiratory therapists sued the Medical Center for sex discrimination, claiming that their supervisor, in order to ensure that the woman with whom he was romantically involved was given a promotion, only considered those applicants who were certified by a specific professional organization. Since the favored woman was the only applicant who had the certification, the plaintiffs alleged the requirement was pretextual.  \nAt trial, the district court found that the Medical Center had violated both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed both claims, holding: “The defendant’s conduct, although unfair, simply did not violate Title VII   The plaintiffs were not prejudiced because of their status as males; ","cbCaisB2iMaeGBmi","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaisB2iMaeGBmi","pdf",292099,11,"English","# Paramour Favoritism in the Employment Context\n## Case Law Overview (DeCintio)\n## EEOC 1990 Policy Guidance\n## Competing Arguments and Court Trends","[{\"question\":\"Is paramour favoritism illegal under Title VII in college workplaces?\",\"answer\":\"Courts have largely rejected the view that Title VII automatically forbids sexual favoritism as such. Many decisions treat employer-partner favoritism as not necessarily sex-based discrimination when similarly situated employees of both genders face the same outcome.\"},{\"question\":\"What did DeCintio v. Westchester County Medical Center hold about paramour favoritism?\",\"answer\":\"The Second Circuit reversed Title VII liability, concluding the conduct was unfair but did not violate Title VII because the plaintiffs were discriminated against due to a preference for the supervisor’s paramour, not because of their sex.\"},{\"question\":\"What guidance did the EEOC provide in 1990 on sexual favoritism?\",\"answer\":\"The EEOC stated that isolated instances of paramour favoritism, without factors showing sexual harassment, do not violate Title VII. It also noted liability could arise when relationships involve coercion or when a particular sex must obtain a benefit through the relationship, and that widespread sexual-favor favoritism may be tantamount to a hostile work environment.\"}]","Paramour Favoritism in the College Workplace - Overview of Case Law and Policy | PDF",28]