Ethical and Criminal Responsibility

Ethical and Criminal Responsibility

Felicia Greene

Law/531

April 11, 2016

Carol Parker

Ethical and Criminal Responsibility

Introduction

In this paper we are asked to answer 6 distinct questions regarding and Ethics in Action scenario found in our text.  In the scenario, an employee of XYZ company commits a sexual assault or other violent attack upon a member of the public.  In this paper I will discuss whether or not XYZ Company has any liability due to negligent hiring, supervising or retaining of said employee.  

Does an employer have an ethical obligation to take corrective or preventative action when employer knows, or has reason to know, that the employee poses a danger to others?

        Yes, I believe that all employers have not only an ethical obligation but a legal obligation to first take preventative action and if necessary corrective action when it is known, or there is reason to know, that an employee poses a danger to others.  If an employee commits a crime while under employment, I believe that the company would only be able to be held liable if the crime what committed within the scope of employment.  Employers cannot be held responsible for what an employee does on their own time .  In this case if the employee was within the scope of his or her employment when the crime was committed then the employer can be held liable.  

         Under a different legal theory, someone who is injured by your employee can sue you for failing to take reasonable care in hiring your workers ("negligent hiring") or in keeping them on after learning the worker poses a potential danger ("negligent retention"). This rule applies even to what your workers do outside the scope of employment -- in fact, it is often used to hold an employer responsible for a worker's violent criminal acts while working, such as rape, murder, or robbery.

However, under this theory you are legally responsible only if you acted carelessly -- that is, if you knew or should have known that an applicant or employee was unfit for the job, yet you did nothing about it. ("Employer Liability for An Employee's Bad Acts", 2016).

Does it matter whether the employer has irrefutable evidence that the employee poses a danger to others or whether the employer has only a reasonable suspicion to that effect?

        No, It does not matter if the employer had irrefutable evidence or just a reasonable suspicion.  It is up to the employer during the hiring process to make sure they are doing all investigations into the person’s background that would include criminal and emotional.  

        Even if an employee commits an act not within the scope of employment that ends up hurting another individual, an employer can still be held liable if it was obvious the employee was reasonably capable of committing this act. In other words, the employer can be held liable for any acts the employee committed that were reasonably predictable. One example of this is if an employer hired an employee without doing a background check, which would have revealed that employee had a criminal record that involved armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. (LaMance, 1999-2016).