Review of the Article 'How to Avoid the Repercussions of Negligent Hiring'

In this chapter, Charles talks about adverse selection and how information about stuff is vital. He states that the information on its own is often under-estimated. For example, if you have the wrong information or if you’re lacking in information then you’re more prone to making a wrong decision. The author gives an example of making the wrong decision when hiring a worker. He states if a pregnant woman is hired and then she takes off for maternity leave and then leaves the company, the

Jose Carcamo et al., Defendants and Appellants in the Supreme Court of California held that tort liability based on negligent hiring and retention is a cause of action distinct from vicarious liability based on respondeat superior. In the case against Jose Carcamo, it was stated he hit a car while driving his truck for his employer, causing Renae Diaz to lose control of her vehicle. The jury awarded Diaz $22.5 million in damages in which Sugar Transport, Carcamo’s employer, was also help liable based on its negligent hiring of Carcamo. Sugar Transport contended that while it is liable for Carcamo’s driving, it should not be held liable for negligent hiring and retention. The court reviewed negligent hiring and retention as theories of liability independent of vicarious liability. The court stated that the liability comes from hiring and retaining an employee who is unfit to conduct his or her duties. Due to the fact that the employer had sufficient enough reason to believe that undue harm could exist with the employment of Carcamo, they were held liable for negligent hiring. Carcamo’s driving history included previous accidents that were relevant to his job assignment. Sugar Transport thus disregarded his past driving record and the danger that could come with his driving for the company. The jury properly considered that evidence when apportioning fault for the

It is likely that Mitch Landsing’s case against R. Thibodeaux Pharmacy will be successful under a theory of respondeat superior. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts his employee commits during the course and scope of his employment. Studebaker v. Nettie 's Flower Garden, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992); Jones v. Brashears, 107 S.W.3d 441, 445(Mo. App. S.D. 2003). In order for an employer to be liable, there must be evidence that during the time of the negligent or omitted act, there was a master-servant relationship.; Bargfrede v. American Income Life Ins. Co., 21 S.W.3d 157 161(Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 367, 359(Mo. 1963).

I am the Director of Human Resources of Lehigh Hanson. In order to ensure the organization remains successful we have to make sure we hire the right people for the organization. In this review we will outline a job interview process and document the methods that we must use to select the right person for the available positions. We will determine at least two employment laws that we must consider in the process questions and examine the key ramifications of the organization’s lack of enforcement of said laws. The organization must predict three issues that we may encounter in building relationships with each type of worker.

1. The court meant by its statement that negligent hiring and negligent retention “rely on liability on the part of an individual or a business that has been on the basis of negligence or other factors resulting in harm or damage to another individual or their property” (Luthra, 2011) and not on “an obligation that arises from the relationship of one party with another” (Luthra, 2011). The court meant that “negligent hiring and negligent retention do not rely on the scope of employment but address risks created by exposing members of the public to a potentially dangerous individual” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457).

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is composed of over eighteen thousand employees. The hiring process is a long and arduous process, consumed with numerous steps. The most pivotal aspect of the hiring process is the background investigation on applicants. Background investigations are a crucial step to deciding if an applicant will be qualified for employment. Unfortunately, even qualified applicants are overlooked, and under qualified applicants are offered employment to meet discriminating hiring quotas. These hiring quotas are a result of a policy known as Affirmative Action.

The question about criminal behavior is only an issue if it can be proven that it affects a protected class. However, Thornton is also asking about arrests, an arrest doesn’t always mean the person was charged with a crime, let alone convicted. An arrest cannot be presumed to say anything about a person’s character. In this case Thornton is clearly overreacting, this raises concerns because he is excluding everyone with a prior arrest or conviction, which creates adverse impact and opens Thornton up to lawsuits. Also it could be argued that Big and Fat’s neutral requirement is discriminating against people of color at a higher rate than whites. Thornton also is opening himself up to adverse impact claims; he isn’t evaluating the arrests or convictions to see if they relate to the position, which is why the EEOC cautions employers from using arrest records and nothing else. The EEOC is very clear that an employer must consider how serious the offense was, its relationship to the job in question, and how long ago the offense occurred.

In dealing with a person’s livelihood, and often, sense of self, it is of no surprise that ethical issues regarding employment practices are of great concern. The issues of employment at will and due process contracts in the workplace are among the most widely contentious in the realm of employment. Employment at will is the doctrine that employment may be ended, by either party, for good, bad or no cause at all.1 Due process, on the other hand, is the employment practice in which a person may appeal a decision as a means of receiving an explanation and the opportunity to argue against it.2 Employment at will is the standard in the majority of private corporations today and is argued for relentlessly by freedom of contract enthusiasts,

When we are dealing with the employment relationship between employers and employees, ethical issues are most likely to emerge. Especially, if a manager fires a worker without a proper reason, critics will follow this employer’s behavior. In Patricia Werhane’s paper, “Employment at Will and Due Process”, discusses two doctrines which are Employment at Will (EAW) and Due Process. It also addresses some justifications and objections for EAW, and shows Werhane’s supportive view to Due Process. In contrast, EAW is defended by Richard Epstein in his article “In Defense of the Contract at Will”. In my paper, I will attempt to develop my argument in favor of Employment at Will that could improve flexibility and efficiency of

The case study about the solution for adverse impact is about a federal government agency that had to deal with complaints from job applicants regarding its selection procedure. The specialists in the agency did not pay attention to the discrimination of minorities and gender applicants in previous recruitment process. Bob Santos who is a specialist in the staffing division of the agency knew it was time to evaluate the staffing process, after attending a seminar on the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Bob Santos and a team of specialists decided to use the four fifths rule to assess the

In conclusion I would recommend that when you are employing you go throughout an intensive procedure, to prevent this moral hazard. For example throughout interviews the HRM can give questionnaires to see if the candidate is the right one for the job environment. Although it is still hard to detect the moral hazard since you are not 100% if they are honest or

This lawsuit unfortunately, gives HR and recruiting a bad name. After reading the article I have to admit that I was both appalled, alarmed; however, I wasn’t shocked, though. Unfortunately, discrimination is too common.

I strongly believe that Organization try to screen potential employees by avoiding hiring applicants who they feel may have ethical issues; they attempt to do this by completing criminal background checks on the applicants. However, several researches

According to Nonprofit Risk Management Center (n.d.), “negligent hiring will allege that if the employer had engaged in more due diligence when screening the worker, a history of similar conduct would have been revealed which should have disqualified the worker from consideration”. With this being said, my current employer was guilty of negligent hiring, however there was never a claim alleging it.

Employment-at-will is a law that stipulate that as long as a employee is not been discriminated he or she can loose their job and any given time. This paper aims to analyze 8 different scenarios and determine whatever or not an employ can lose his or her job based in some behaviors, actions, or inactions that had lead to a somewhat hostile, aggressive, and even disrespectful work environment. At the same time the paper will address the importance of whistleblower police for any organization. While the employment-at-will allows employers to terminate their staff at any moment, at the same time it protect the staff from any type of discrimination.