The recent viral Coldplay “kiss‑cam” moment caused quite a sensation on social media and uncovered costly risks for employers to consider. At Coldplay’s July 16, 2025 show, the venue’s “kiss‑cam” panned to two concert goers –tech company Astronomer CEO Andy Byron and Chief People Officer Kristin Cabot – who were embracing when they visibly ducked and turned away. The two executives were seemingly caught very publicly having an affair. The video racked up tens of millions of views on social media and has since led to both Byron and Cabot resigning.

Sifting through all of the satire and unfortunate public statements, it reminded many of last year’s abrupt termination of RBC’s CFO following an internal probe into her undisclosed personal relationship.

Office romances aren’t uncommon, and workplace policies are generally put in place to mitigate any risk that might arise from power dynamics and favouritism, protecting the well-being of a company’s public reputation. These two incidents are stark reminders for employers of how quickly a workplace romance can become a public and legal headache. Employers must have the proper policies and protections in place.

Employers must update harassment and workplace relationship policies to ensure they are legal, enforceable, and reflective of today’s social environment. If you are not working with a legal professional to regularly review these policies, you are opening yourself up to costly lawsuits and public breakdown of trust. Here are several factors to consider as an employer after an office romance emerges.

Verify Consent and Power Dynamics

Before any disciplinary step, discreetly confirm that the relationship is fully consensual. If one party supervises or can influence the other’s job, or if there are any signs of pressure or coercion, you may need to treat the matter as a potential harassment complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act or a human‑rights issue under the Human Rights Code.

Leverage and Enforce Policies

If it was a consensual relationship and the undisclosed affair breaches relevant interpersonal policies such as a non-fraternization policy, employers could take actions outlined in those policies, which might include termination.

A written policy about certain types of personal relationships can provide guidance on how to deal with workplace romance, including the reporting process, confidentiality, whistleblower protection, investigation process, consequences of violation, etc. For instance, if a policy specifies that a failure to disclose a romantic relationship with a subordinate will lead to termination, it can more easily justify a termination for cause. Absent such policies, when assessing whether an office romance justifies termination, they need to examine whether it fundamentally undermines the employment relationship by violating an essential contractual obligation or breaching the faith inherent in the trust relationship.

For example, an Ontario court upheld a just‑cause dismissal in Reichard v. Kuntz, 2011 ONSC 7460, where a purchasing manager was terminated after his affair with his subordinate emerged. He violated the non-fraternization policy by lying about the relationship, taking extended lunches, recommending her transfer, and defying orders during the investigation. These actions undermined the trust, integrity, and honesty expected from a manager. As a result, the termination for cause was justified.

Conduct a Workplace Investigation

Many office‑romance policies impose a duty to investigate and provide detailed guidelines. If no relevant policy is in place, employers should still investigate before implementing any disciplinary actions against the employees involved.

The investigation should be conducted in good faith and adhere to proper procedural requirements. In Rutledge v. Markhaven Inc., 2022 ONSC 3183, the employer was penalized for its conduct during the investigation into workplace romance involving its executive director. The court criticized the employer’s investigative process as severely flawed, breaching the duty of good faith and fair dealing. As a result, the employer was ordered to pay $244,852.41, which included $50,000 in moral damages.

Workplace Law Takeaways From the Coldplay Scandal

1. Establish and Regularly Review Policies

The Coldplay scandal shows employers that it is imperative to engage legal counsel to adopt a clear workplace relationship policy before there is an issue. Policies should include a requirement of timely disclosure, particularly in any reporting‑line scenario, and outlines investigation procedures and consequences for noncompliance. Cases show that where an employer has a well-defined workplace policy on intimate relationships, disclosure obligations and conflicts of interest, it is far easier to justify an employer’s disciplinary actions.

Employers should also work with experienced employment lawyers to review existing policies regularly to ensure all approaches will withstand scrutiny.

2. Conduct Proper Workplace Investigations

Employers are encouraged to hire an experienced lawyer to investigate any incidents related to workplace relationships before proceeding with termination. Discipline or termination is rarely justifiable on private moral grounds alone. An experienced investigator will gather any evidence of conflicts of interest, dishonesty, insubordination, or other behaviours, and provide legal advice on the next steps if disciplinary actions are warranted.

3. Extra Considerations for Hiring Executives

When hiring executives, companies should consult a lawyer about the extra requirements for these roles to ensure accountability and enable swift action if the executives cross the line. The Coldplay kiss-cam incident highlights that executives’ behaviour can significantly impact a company’s reputation. For instance, employers may consider including a morality clause in executive employment agreements or codes of conduct. This clause would hold executives to a higher standard of integrity and professionalism, as conduct such as public scandals or convicted criminal offences may result in termination due to the reasonably foreseeable damage to the company’s reputation.