If you remember anything about Friends, you will undoubtedly recall the trials and tribulations of Ross and Rachel.
The two were, at least periodically, "on a break" - after one had announced a break up of their relationship with the other.
But the mere fact of this announcement did not, it seemed, excuse any dalliances on the part of the other. Though technically broken up, the affected party entered into a hiatus period - during which it was unacceptable to engage in a relationship with someone else.
A complicated, and unsettling state of affairs.
And one which is arguably mirrored in employment law.
It might be tempting to think that when you go to work, the obligations that you owe to your employer start at the office door, and finish when you leave in the evening. But life is not that simple.
Sometimes, something which an employee does outside of the workplace - and in his or her own time - can be so significant that it nonetheless has an effect upon the employment relationship.
Put another way, something can occur outside of work which, because of its nature, causes the employer to question the trust and confidence that it can continue to have in its employee.
A recent case - involving a decision of the District Court in Wellington - at least potentially illustrates this issue.
Kevin Lyford is a 55-year-old real estate agent, and a South Wairarapa District Councillor who goes by the name of "Boof". In March he was driving his car through Greytown when he indulged in an incident of road rage. He believed that the car in front of him was driving too slowly, and tailgated it. The court found that when the car came to a halt, Lyford attacked the driver - a young woman - by lunging through her car window to grab her by the neck and by shaking her.
Wellington District Court Judge Tom Broadmore described Lyford as "a big angry man against a young woman with little or no remorse for what he had done". He fined Lyford $3,000, with $500 to be paid to his victim.
The councillor's conviction was brought to the attention of the South Wairarapa Chief Executive, Griff Page, who explained that councillors were only required to stand down from office if convicted of crimes punishable by two (or more) years' imprisonment. Because this crime did not fall within that criteria, Lyford may continue as a councillor.
The situation might, however, have been different had Lyford been an employee of the council.
The initial temptation might be to conclude that this incident occurred in Lyford's own time - away from his workplace - and should therefore not be taken into account in the context of his job. But the law recognises that this may not necessarily be so.
Particularly if he had been employed in a position involving a requirement of the utmost trust and confidence (such as a senior management position, or one involving the need for the utmost honesty) the fact of this may have been sufficient for the employer reasonably to doubt its ability to trust him in his role.
Similarly - although for slightly different reasons - had Lyford been employed as an anger management counsellor, this event may have been sufficient to justify the employer in dismissing him from his role because the events that occurred would be so inherently contrary to the requirements of his job.
In assessing the incident - and determining the reasonable reaction to it - an employer is entitled to give regard to the nature of the particular transgression. In this case, the fact that the incident involved violence – and an overbearing attitude - might be more significant than the potential criminal penalty that accompanied it.
Put simply, there are few workplaces in which behaviour of this type is acceptable and, regardless of the penalty imposed by the court, the employer could reasonably conclude that the commission of the offence alone is enough to raise serious issues about its ability to continue in an employment relationship with the offender.
These are not, of course, matters that the South Wairarapa Council will raise with Boof Lyford. They may, however, be matters borne in mind by voters if he chooses to stand again at the next council election.