Employer Liability for Negligent Hiring/ Discrimination

35

Requirement

Employer Liability for Negligent Hiring/ Discrimination and please answer discussion questions separately and list references for each.

Solution

Employer Liability for Negligent Hiring/ Discrimination

Discussion 1

All the employers have the duty to check the background of the employee before hiring in the process of employment. In this instant case of (Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight , 1986), the employee, i.e. Edward Harbour, was employed by B&L, but the employer did not check the criminal background of the Harbour and thereafter in the course of the employment (Patricia M. Harris, 2005), the employee committed the same offence he was previously convicted for. So, if the doctrine of the respondent superior is applied, i.e. the doctrine of vicarious liability (MEYER v. HOLLEY et al, 2003), then the employer will be liable to the third parties, here the plaintiff, for those actions of the employee done in the course of the business (Minuti, 1998). Again, the plaintiff is right in pointing out that, the employer failed to do a background check for the criminal records for the employee, so the duty so fastened on the employer was not performed and hence the employer will be liable for the injuries so done on the plaintiff and so must compensate the victim (Sykes, 1988). Thus, the employer must have been cautious in hiring the employee and without doing that in the right time cannot shift the burden or the onus to someone else or to some other regulations and so is dutybound to compensate the plaintiff victim. 

References

• Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight , Inc., 146 Ill. App.3d 265, 496 N.E.2d 1086 (1986) (1986).

• MEYER v. HOLLEY et al, 537 U. S. 280 (2003) (The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit January 22, 2003).

• Minuti, M. (1998). Employer Liability under the Doctrine of Negligent Hiring: Suggested Methods for Avoiding the Hiring of Dangerous Employees . Delaware Journal of Corporate Law.

• Patricia M. Harris, K. S. (2005). Ex-Offenders Need Not Apply- The Criminal Background Check in Hiring Decisions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 6-30.

• Sykes, A. O. (1988). The Boundaries of Vicarious Liability: An Economic Analysis of the Scope of Employment Rule and Related Legal Doctrines. Harvard Law Review, 563-609.

Discussion 2

Discrimination in the workplace is that harassment which involves multifarious things, including bullying, or racial slurs and can also be denial for the promotion to the next level. So, basically, discrimination is different treatment to an individual or a group of individuals based on race, sex, or age etc. But, there is no recognition of appearance discrimination under the federal laws and employers are in general free to employ pretty faces, but when the throughout hiring process and the employment decisions are based on the appearance or the attractiveness, then that employer is sure to face litigation. So, discriminating an overweight or obese woman to an attractive or beautiful woman is discrimination based on the very appearance and engaging such tactics by the employers is unlawful and illegal. It is true that there is no specific legislation covering this aspect of discrimination, but when two women are discriminated based on the looks or the attractiveness, then law relating to sex discrimination will prevail. Similarly, when a youthful appearance is discriminated, then that comes under the purview of the reverse age discrimination was held in (BERGEN COMMERCIAL BANK v. SISLER, 1999). So, to avoid these kind of lawsuits, it is important that the employers only opt for the talents in the employees and not discriminate any individual based on their looks or attractiveness or any other forms of discrimination, and in so doing the employers will create a healthy discrimination- free environment. 

References

• BERGEN COMMERCIAL BANK v. SISLER (Supreme Court of New Jersey February 24, 1999).