No Spouse Employment Policy
The case of Star Paper Corporation vs. Simbol brought about the concepts of disparate impact and disparate treatment on employment discrimination into our shores.
In disparate treatment analysis, the complainant must prove that an employment policy is discriminatory on its face. No-spouse employment policies requiring an employee of a particular sex to either quit, transfer, or be fired are facially discriminatory. For example, an employment policy prohibiting the employer from hiring wives of male employees, but not husbands of female employees, is discriminatory on its face.
While in disparate impact, complainant must prove that a facially neutral policy has a disproportionate effect on a particular class. For example, although most employment policies do not expressly indicate which spouse will be required to transfer or leave the company, the policy often disproportionately affects one sex.
Acquire Mastery of HR/Labor Doctrines, Rules and Principles with Atty. Elvin’s HR Bundle Books at Discounted Rate
Thus, when the Court was confronted with argument that the employer’s policy will apply only when one employee marries a co-employee, but they are free to marry persons other than co-employees, the Court held that the questioned policy may not facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but it creates a disproportionate effect and under the disparate impact theory. The only way it could pass judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is reasonable despite the discriminatory, albeit disproportionate, effect.
The failure of the employer to prove a legitimate business concern in imposing the questioned policy cannot prejudice the employee’s right to be free from arbitrary discrimination based upon stereotypes of married persons working together in one company.
In the case of Duncan Association of Detailman- PTGWO and Pedro Tecson vs. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc., the Court passed on the validity of the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees from marrying employees of any competitor company. It was held that Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors. The Court considered the prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxo’s employees reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of Glaxo. In laying down the assailed company policy, the Court recognized that Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures.
Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin 
Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:
Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:
Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing