Abstract
Anti-nepotism rules in public organizations have led to law suits based on anti-discrimination statutes and the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to work with their spouses if they are qualified employees. Employers, on the other hand, defend anti-nepotism rules as a business necessity, arguing that married co-workers are a potentially disruptive influence in the office. A review of federal and state court decisions suggests that married co-workers rarely prevail in such cases. In this area of civil and constitutional litigation, public employer liabilities appear to be limited to situations where restrictions are unreasonably broad.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
