Davis vs. the Board of County Commissioners of Doa Ana County - Essay Example

? Davis vs. the Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County Lecturer: Davis vs. the Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County What was the legal issue in this case? The legal issue of the Davis vs. The Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County involves the acts of ill-will, which could have been avoidable. When Mesilla Valley Hospital (MVH) employed Joseph Herrera as a detention officer at Dona Anna county Detention Center, he was allegedly accused of sexual behaviors. Herrera was accused by the plaintiff, one of the female employees for sexually assaulting her and exchanging sex for favors. The supervisors of Herrera, Frank Steele investigated the allegations and advised him that the course of action will be taken upon his actions. This made Herrera resign from his work in order to evade the disciplinary action. After a few days, the supervisor wrote a letter on behalf of Herrera to the MVH revealing that Herrera was an excellent worker arguing that he was confident that other prospective employees will notice (Walsh (2010, p. 148). Another supervisor of the Detention Centre made some verbal references that praised Herrera as a good worker who will contribute to effective organization performance. This made the plaintiff, the third party in this case to sue the Detention County for negligent misinterpretations of providing misleading information. This misinformation was provided by Mochen and Steele, employees at the Detention Center, which enabled Herrera to be employed again at the MVH. This legal issue was seen as a threat to employee; thus the plaintiff to be assaulted; hence sorted to accuse the board of county commissioners of Dona Ana County. Why does the court conclude that Dona Ana County could be held liable for negligent referral (misrepresentation)? The court concludes that Dona Ana Country deserves to be accountable for negligent referral (misinterpretation) due to positive references. When Herrera got a position as mental health technician, he was allegedly accused of sex assault by the plaintiff and physically abused female patients. In case an organization provides misleading references that can contribute to harm of employees in the new job, the jurisdictions have the right to sue that organization for negligent referral. According to Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto (2004), the court of appeal has the right to judge Steele and Mochen for not taking into considerations the harm caused to the third party and the risk that may be encountered in the end. The government has laws that protect all employees and the third parties in an organization from any harm imposed upon them. The US departments of Labor and its divisions have varied laws, which can shield third parties or employees in the workplace. Cases of negligent or a misinterpretation of any information provided regarding employees that may pose risks to other employees is illegal. Therefore, the court made it very clear that Herrera was not supposed to provide employment reference since he was a former employee at MVH. Therefore, Herrera could have remained silent, but in case he chose to present the reference, the MVH has a duty to present factual information about him. However, since Sleeve and Mochen made a decision of presenting signed written misinterpreted information by omitting Herrera’s references, they were liable for this action. This is because Herrera could not be trusted as an employee who could deliver effective services as his behaviors could bear worse results; thus portraying a bad image to the company. Should it have mattered that the former employer’s investigation was not able to confirm all of the allegations against Herrera? Explain your answer. It should have mattered that the former employer’s investigation was not able to confirm all the allegations against Herrera because the decision relied upon legal issues. This legal issue places an individual who either deliberately or negligently offers false information to another party for the physical assault, which results from an independent act. Therefore, it may become difficult to prove to the information presented as some significant components may include some false information. This false information cannot be explicit dismal but rather the failure to offer a claim on intentional misinterpretations or negligent of information presented forward. In case the former employer’s investigation could have been handled well and the case well presented in an effective manner, the case could not have reached up to the conclusion made from the court. Moreover, in case the supervisors of Herrera could have provided factual information about the former employer or employee refuse to provide an employment reference, the case could not have reached up to this conclusion. Even the court made it clear that former employers can avoid providing references in order to avoid all liabilities by remaining silent. This is significant, as it will enable the employees or organizations to avoid incurring costs associated with legal issues. There are laws that shield employees from retaliation for reporting on violation of laws or participating in any proceeding under the law especially that of Whistle Blower Law (Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto, 2004). Therefore, this legal action could have made the former employer’s investigation unable to confirm all the allegations made against Herrera. What practical implications does this decision hold? Are you convinced by the court’s claim that this ruling should not make employers more reluctant to provide references? The decision made by the court holds significant implications to employees in the work place. The decision made by the court is effective because it will enable organizations to maintain law and be careful when they are recruiting employees. This is significant for the safety of not only employees but also to the company as a whole. There are many cases that have been reported in the workplace and most of them resulting due to employees’ immoral conduct. This have impacted many people especially the third parties; thus contributing to poor organizational performances. For instance, the recent case of California Supreme opinion on Randi case is closely analogous to this case. Williams, Heery and Abbott (J2011) argue that human resource managers have a duty of care; hence, they should make factual recommendations that would not create harm to anyone. I am convinced to the court’s claim that this ruling should not make employers reluctant to provide references. The court was right when they ruled out that employees should not be reluctant to provide references. This is because, in some cases, providing references when getting referrals or position in another work place or the same organization when ones seek for an employment is vital. The reason behind this is that some employees may have already quit their former place of work with bad criminal records. This can threaten the performance or employee productivity or contribute to serious problems in the new work place. For instance, in case an employee just left the former place because of sexually assaulting his or her work mate and found a new job, it is better for the organization to demand the previous employment record. Moreover, the human resource managers should ensure that when they offer facts about the employee’s behaviors and performance in the work place, they should be honest. This is crucial because it will help in reducing incidences that may affect employees in the new work environment. References Kohn, S. M., Kohn, M. D., & Colapinto, D. K. (2004). Whistleblower law: A guide to legal protections for corporate employees. Westport, Conn: Praeger. Walsh, D. J. (2010). Employment law for human resource practice, 2nd Edition. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, pp. 148-150. Williams, S., Heery, E., & Abbott, B. (January 01, 2011). The emerging regime of civil regulation in work and employment relations. Human Relations, 64, 7, 951-970. Read More