need 7pm tonight
Nokcool
replies.docxThursdayOct 24 at 12:55pm
There are many duties a business has with regard to checking the background of potential employees before hiring. In terms of the case provided in the textbook, B&L had a duty to check Harbour's criminal background and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal. The first duty requires that the degree of care which an owner should exercise in selecting a driver is that which a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances. An owner or employer also owes a duty in connection with the entrustment of vehicles to others. In other words, a vehicle owner has a duty to deny the entrustment of a vehicle to a driver it knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence could have known, is incompetent. In addition to these duties, it is well settled in Illinois that a cause of action exists against an employer for negligently hiring a person the employer knew, or should have known, was unfit for the job (Seaquist, 2012).
Yes, I do agree that businesses should be liable for injuries resulting from negligent hiring. In the event that a potential hiree is injured based on some form of negligence on behalf of the business then the business should be liable for many reasons. The new hire is expecting to be able to start the position in good health and if they are unable to do so, then they will be unable to not only work but it would cost them money to pay for medical expenses. In addition, an employer may also be liable to third parties under another theory: that of negligent hiring. In these cases, the employee does not necessarily commit a tort, but rather may engage in activity that is tortuous or criminal. The theory of liability is based on the argument that the employer knew or should have known that the employee was somehow dangerous or incompetent when hired, and thus, the employer should be held responsible (Seaquist, 2012).
2. COLLAPSE SUBDISCUSSION Ana De La Cruz Hurtado
ThursdayOct 24 at 1:29pm
The case of Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight, Inc. in Seaquist’s (2012) text is a tricky one with good arguments on both sides. The plaintiff (the one suing B&L) alleges that it was due to B&L’s negligence of not checking the employees background that ultimately led to her being raped and assaulted. The defendant (B&L Motor Freight, Inc.) argued that the employees’ negative response about non-vehicular convictions did not warrant a background check. It is my personal belief that B&L Motor Freight, Inc. had a duty to check Harbour’s background and in not doing so acted negligently.
My reasoning for my stance comes from a term coined by Russian author Suzanne Massie and later quoted by President Ronald Reagan “Trust but verify” (Porzucki 2014). If an employer will call to verify past employment, then there is no reason why they should not also verify background information. A potential candidate’s negative response that they have not had any past convictions is not sufficient enough not to verify. Verifying the individuals background can be a stepping stone in the process of building trust with the potential employee. If they lied, then that shows they are untrustworthy, but if they were honest, then this shows that despite their past, if they have one, they can be trusted but that also depends on the type of past. It would be nice to be able to take peoples words at face value but in the world, we live in we must verify to protect ourselves and our employees if you are in a position of management.
3. Amber Jenkins
ThursdayOct 24 at 1:11pm
No, I do not feel as though employers should be permitted to discriminate based upon attractiveness. While there are some jobs that essentially thrive off of appearance such as modeling, sex work, and even acting one's attractiveness or lack thereof still should not be a reason as to why they would or would not be hired. Typically any form of discrimination is illegal especially regarding race, religion, sex, gender, and even age. Discriminating against potential employees based upon attractiveness could not only discourage people from wanting to apply for a certain position, but it could also violate laws within a specific area. Employers should try their hardest to make sure that the right person for the job is able to apply without feeling any less confident about their appearance or feel as though their appearance alone could prevent them from possibly being hired.
Judgments based on attractiveness should not spill over to educational and employment contexts where they have no socially defensible role. In pursuing that agenda, an obvious place to start is to prohibit discrimination based on appearance. The reason is the one that courts have advanced in rejecting customer preferences as a defense to claims involving race or sex discrimination. Those preferences generally reflect and reinforce precisely the attitudes that society is seeking to change. Congress and the courts recognized that the most effective way of combating bias was to deprive people of the option to indulge in it. By the same token, it should be illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of appearance (newrepublic.com).
4. Ana De La Cruz Hurtado
FridayOct 25 at 1:21pm
Discrimination based upon attractiveness is very interesting of a topic to debate upon. Some would easily argue that the EEOC has laws in place regarding discrimination. Others would say that depending on the job, attractiveness plays a large role and if indeed a person lacks the appropriate traits, then they can be discriminated upon. What I realize is however, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Simply stated, that’s why I feel that this level of discrimination would be subjective to whosoever is making the decision. I may feel someone is attractive, whereas my counterparts may feel that the person is unattractive. This in itself can open the field up for a larger debate. “The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information” (EEOC, 2018, p.1). The EEOC also does further explanation. They state, “It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit” (EEOC, 2018, p.1). The other issue one may face is that even if an employer did choose one candidate "who was more attractive," how does the employee candidate prove it? Seaquist (2012) explains that these cases can be some of the costliest legal problem’s businesses can face. Therefore, I believe it is best for their liability to hire based on qualifications over their attractiveness of the candidate
