Employee-employer hiring relates to the concept of negligence - Essay Example

Therefore, employers who hire temporary employees or elevate them to permanent ones cannot lay succeed in filing claims for negligence on temp agencies that fail to run background checks. In light of this, Robert Half’s failure to disclose Ms Tee Rose’s suspected criminal past does not amount to a breach of duty to run background checks; rather, it is merely an exercise of the duty of care under the contract between itself and Ms Rose. The court’s ruling against Fox Associates was correct because the case did not meet the three-point threshold for recovering the damages arising from negligence.

Fox Associates failed to establish that: (a) Robert Half owed it a fiduciary duty, hence would cushioning it against any injury caused by the employee; (b) Robert Half abdicated that duty; c) damages amounting to $76,600 proximately arose from the breach of duty. In the decision against Fox Associates the court may have given prominence to Robert Half’s social utility to employers; lack of foreseeability of Ross’ criminal record, since she had not been convicted of any felony; the burden of protection against injury, which in this case rested with the Fox Associates; and the repercussions of imposing the burden on the temp agency, which could force it to close down (Reicher, 2013; Nixon, & Kerr, 2011).

The court’s decision was in line with the verdict on Praesel v. Johnson, 967 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1998), which directed that a clinician does not owe a duty to third parties such as employment agencies. In Wise v. Complete Staffing Servs., Inc., 56 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2001), the temp agency was conditionally exempted from liability arising from the employee’s misconduct (Reicher, 2013). In light of these precedents, Fox Associates should have done its own background checks on Ms Rose before employing her on permanent basis.

Sunbeam is more at fault for its failure to run background checks on the senior-most executive prior to his hiring. Unlike the less formal relationship between the executive search agency and the Sunbeam, the employer had a valid employment contract with Mr Dunlop and its assets were more likely to be at risk in the event Mr Dunlop had criminal record (Reicher, 2013; Nixon, & Kerr, 2011). Background checks on executives should be conducted within organizations or through a contracted search consultant upon a formal consent from the potential executive regarding the nature or level of the checks.

As Colaprete (2012) has suggested, Ms Ross’ former employers said nothing about the employee’s history and gave her good recommendations, perhaps because they were not a Consumer Reporting Agency tasked with probing her alleged misconduct within their respective organizations. This was strategic in the sense that the omission enabled the employers to avoid the rigorous process and costs associated with the fair treatment of Ross, considering that she had not yet been convicted. Moreover, with the criminal investigations against Ms Rose still underway, perhaps the employers did not want to be held liable for “misrepresentation of facts” for pre-empting an on-going judicial process in the event that the outcomes of the investigations rendered the employers’ recommendations derogatory information.

If I were one of her former employers, I would mention the foreseeability of Ms Ross engaging in acts of felony, but