Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenDullesMJ12
Should employers have the right to discriminate against job applicants who have been convicted of crimes?
|
That question has already been answered by State and Federal Courts, and the answer is "Yes."
Remember, when you hire an employee, you are responsible for what that employee does under the doctrines of the Master-Servant Relationship stemming from English Common Law.
If that employee causes damages or injuries to other employees or to customers, then the employer is liable for damages.
Many people are under the grotesquely mistaken belief that your employer is not allowed to discuss things with other potential employers like your work history, work ethics, work performance and such.
They couldn't be more wrong.
In Texas, a security guard was terminated for suspected theft, and it was also believed he had committed more serious crimes such as rapes.
The ex-guard applied for work at another security company, and that company contacted his former employer to determine the nature of his employment. The former security company would only provide his dates of employment, and despite repeated requests, refused to characterize his termination as voluntary or involuntary.
Lacking any information to the contrary, the company hired him and placed him in an apartment complex. He assisted an intoxicated female resident from her car to her apartment, and then he obtained the pass key from the office, entered her apartment and raped her.
She sued the security company (and the apartment complex management company and the property owners) for damages.
The security company named the former security company as a 3rd Party Defendant, and proving to the jury that they had exercised their fiduciary duty, the jury decided that the security company was not entirely at fault, limited their liability to 10% and cited the former security company as 90% liable for damages, awarding her a few $Million.
That's one case and there are thousands on the books where employees or customers and clients sued because their employer hired an individual who was known to be violent or known to engage in fraud or theft if not because of their criminal record then for other reasons and were awarded damages.
There is no way the courts will allow an employer to be forced to hire a liability and then hold the employer responsible for the liability.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
