What Employers Can Learn From ‘Your Friends & Neighbors’

In the Apple TV+ drama “Your Friends and Neighbors,” Jon Hamm plays Andrew Cooper, also known as Coop, a hedge fund manager who is going through a rough divorce after finding his wife in bed with a retired NBA player.

Compounding his troubles at home, Coop is terminated from his job at the hedge fund firm. Consequently, he struggles to maintain his lavish lifestyle in a New York suburb, but does not want to face the possibility of being unable to indulge his children. To compensate for his losses, Coop begins stealing luxury goods from his friends’ homes in the neighborhood and exchanging the goods for cash at a local pawn shop.

While the show has become a conversation starter at almost every gathering since its first episode aired in April, many people seem to lose sight of the fact that some of Coop’s employment struggles can teach us a few lessons about workplace policies, for cause termination and nonsolicitation clauses.

Workplace Dating Policies

Early in the first episode, Coop gets quickly acquainted with another employee named Liv. Their friendly and flirtatious encounter at a bar leads to a hookup that ultimately results in Coop’s termination from the firm.

Coop’s boss claims that his termination is due to his alleged affair with Liv, even though they didn’t work in the same department and she never filed a complaint. Nonetheless, this information somehow reaches upper management and Coop is terminated.

This raises the question: Even if Coop was having an affair with Liv, would that justify an immediate termination of his employment?

Workplace dating policies can vary from company to company. In 2024, the Society for Human Resource Management conducted a survey that found that less than a third of workers were aware of their organizations having a formal workplace romance policy. Most companies either lack a policy or prefer to address situations on a case-by-case basis.

Interestingly, the same survey showed that less than 30% of workers approved of relationships between managers and subordinates.

High-profile cases, such as McDonald’s Corp. v. Easterbrook, which was brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2020 and stemmed from the dismissal of McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook for violating company policies on relationships, underscores the importance of clear guidelines.

To navigate the complexities of workplace relationships, there are several steps employers should take. First, employers must develop clear policies regarding workplace relationships.

If an employer doesn’t have an employee handbook, perhaps now is the time to consider creating one, so that employees are clear as to whether their flirtatious water cooler conversations are allowed to evolve into something more.

Employers should also encourage transparency and foster an environment where employees feel comfortable disclosing relationships, particularly those involving power differentials.

Employer-provided training to protect employees from harassment is also important, and some states even require it. While no federal law outright bans workplace dating, the #MeToo movement prompted California and New York to adopt laws requiring employers to provide sexual harassment prevention training and enforce clear policies.

For example, California’s S.B. 1343 amended Government Code Section 12950.1, mandating sexual harassment prevention training for all California employees. Specifically, it requires supervisors to receive two hours of training every two years, and nonsupervisory employees to receive one hour of training every two years.

Similarly, the New York State Human Rights Law was amended by the 2018 budget bill, S.7507-C and A.9507-C, to expand protections against discrimination and harassment in the workplace, including extending protections to certain nonemployees, such as contractors, vendors and consultants. The amendment also eliminated the requirement that harassment be severe or pervasive to be actionable.

Lastly, employers should monitor and adjust policies regularly, and update their policies to reflect changing workplace dynamics and legal requirements.

This begs the question of whether Coop’s conduct did, in fact, constitute harassment. Given that Liv held a subordinate position in the workplace, Coop should have made a wiser decision that evening.

However, it is unclear to the audience whether the hedge fund firm banned workplace romances. And even if it did have a workplace romance policy, given that Coop turns out to be a thief, he is evidently fearless when it comes to breaking the law, so perhaps he disregarded the guidelines too.

Termination For Cause

As the show progresses, Coop initiates a lawsuit against his former employer on the grounds that his affair with Liv was consensual, and therefore, his termination was wrongful and without cause.

His termination, despite there being no formal complaint or connection between their work responsibilities, brings attention to the issue of job security. Sometimes, personal relationships can be misconstrued or manipulated to justify wrongful termination, often leaving the employee vulnerable and seeking recourse.

Termination for cause refers to an employer ending an employment relationship due to specific misconduct or the failure to meet job expectations. Common grounds typically include poor performance, misconduct, dishonesty or breach of loyalty.

In cases where an employment contract specifies that termination must be for just cause, employers are obligated to provide a legitimate reason for dismissal.

All states, except Montana, allow at-will employment, meaning that an employer can generally terminate an employee for any reason, or no reason at all, as long as it is not discriminatory or illegal. However, there are exceptions to the at-will employment rule, and the specific exceptions and their scope can differ from state to state.

Employers should be aware that they cannot terminate their employees in the following instances. Conversely, employees should be aware that if they are terminated from the workplace, they should see if any of these exceptions apply to their rights.

Employment Contracts

Some employment contracts may state that the employer can only fire the employee for good cause, criminal reasons or another specific reason outlined in the contract.

In some cases, there may not be an actual contract, but the employer might have made one or more statements clearly indicating that it won’t fire an employee for arbitrary reasons, or that there will be opportunities to improve their performance before termination.

Public Policy Violations

Under the public policy exception to at-will employment, an employer’s termination is considered wrongful if the termination is against an explicit and well-established public policy of the state.

For example, an employer cannot terminate an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim after being injured on the job, for refusing to do something illegal or for serving on a jury.

The public policy exception is the most widely accepted exception, as it recognized in almost all 50 states, and the basic idea is that employers can’t fire an employee for doing the right thing.

Discrimination And Retaliation

Terminations based on race, gender, age, disability, religion or other protected characteristics, as well as retaliation for whistleblowing or filing complaints, are prohibited under laws like the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Specifically, in California, employee protections regarding discrimination are generally considered more comprehensive as FEHA protects against discrimination based on a wider range of factors than federal law.

Implied Covenant Of Good Faith

Employers may not terminate employees in bad faith or with malice, such as firing someone to avoid paying their earned benefits. If an employer terminates their employee for any of the foregoing reasons, the employee may potentially have a claim against the employer for wrongful termination.

In Coop’s case, it’s fair to say that he probably met his job expectations, given that he had been at the hedge fund firm for many years. Coop’s boss attempts to defend his decision to terminate Coop by claiming that it was based on just cause, referring to Coop’s alleged affair with Liv as the reason for his dismissal.

To mitigate the litigation risks associated with termination, employers should get in the habit of documenting performance issues and should try to maintain clear records of employee performance and any disciplinary actions.

It is also important for employers to apply consistent policy enforcement to all employees, as doing so may avoid any confusion down the road where one employee feels unfairly disadvantaged compared to another.

Further, employers should educate management on lawful termination procedures and antidiscrimination laws.

The audience is unclear as to the remedies Coop hopes to gain in regard to his lawsuit against his former employer. Generally, states vary in terms of the types of remedies that are available to employees.

New York allows employees to recover lost wages and benefits, emotional distress and punitive damages, and even nonmonetary relief, such as reinstatement of their job.

Enforceability Of Nonsolicitation Clauses

A nonsolicitation clause is a contractual provision that typically prohibits an employee from soliciting the clients, customers or employees of a business for a specified period after their employment relationship ends.

It aims to prevent the departing or fired employee from taking away business or employees from their former employer, thereby protecting the employer’s valuable relationships and resources.

In New York, nonsolicitation agreements are typically enforceable, but only under specific conditions. These agreements aim to safeguard legitimate business interests, such as confidential information, trade secrets and distinctive client relationships maintained by employees.

The show touches on the enforceability of nonsolicitation clauses. We learn that Coop’s employment contract contains a nonsolicitation clause for a two-year duration that will likely prevent him from seeking new employment and limit his future career options, to the benefit of the hedge fund firm.

It’s hard to support Coop’s unsavory attempts to maintain his lifestyle, and perhaps if he wasn’t so fearless, he could have avoided some of this unnecessary stress. Conversely, others could argue that Coop’s employer should have maintained clearer guidelines regarding workplace romances and termination policies.

Regardless, it is interesting to see how temptations can spiral into a domino effect of mistakes, and we may be curious to see if the hedge fund will suffer without Coop’s presence.

Conclusion

“Your Friends and Neighbors” offers several lessons for employers.

First, it would be wise to consider implementing or updating an employee handbook to ensure it outlines all the company rules regarding workplace romances. It can even be broad enough to cover the dress code, attendance and other expectations.

Additionally, employers should ensure that they have adhered to the applicable state law training requirements to prevent sexual harassment.

Lastly, employers should think twice before incorporating a nonsolicitation clause in their employee’s contract and should ensure that the clause is enforceable.

Whether you are a business owner managing many employees or a human resources executive, it would be wise to stay up to date with the continually evolving employment laws. Good luck, Coop.

Anita Levian is a managing partner at Levian Law.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.