Davis v. the Board of County Commissioners of Dana Ana County

Patty Turner

Dr. John Loblack

HRM510 Business Employment Law

11/01/2012

Davis v. the Board of County Commissioners of Dana Ana County
This case explores the fundamental legal issue of negligent referrals or misrepresentations of facts that an employer provides regarding a previous employee. Questions for the court to evaluate regarding the matter are: What if provided references are misleading? Can an employer be sued for exercising negligence in referring an unfit employee who harms or show foreseeable possibilities of causing harm on a new job? Who bestows the duty of care?
What was the legal issue in this case? The legal issue in the case of Davis v the Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County involved the misrepresenting of referral information of a previous employee, Joseph Herrera. Herrera was a detention officer at the Dona Ana County Detention Center who was disciplined for having improper sexual interaction with female prison inmates. In spite of these unprofessional issues, Herrera’s supervisor, Frank Steele, gave him an outstanding reference; a reference that helped him secure another position at another institution. In addition to Steele’s excellent letter of reference, Herrera received a positive verbal recommendation from another supervisor, Mochen. Unfortunately, Herrera did not live up to the positive referrals he received from his former supervisors. Consequently, his new employers sued the County for neglectful misrepresentation. The plaintiff contended that the distortion of Steele and Mochen enticed them to hire Herrera and inevitably led to Herrera’s assault of one of the patients at MVH. MVH also noted that if Steele and Mochen had shared accurate informationThe hospital stated that as Herrera’s direct supervisor, Steele and Mochen failed in their responsibility to discipline Herrera and to complete an accurate referral.
Why does the court conclude that Doña Ana County could be held liable for negligent referral (misrepresentation)? The court concluded that Doña Ana County could be held liable for negligent referral (misrepresentation) because of the positive references provided on behalf of the accused Herrera a mental health technician. Approximately six weeks he sexually assaulted and physically abused a female patient in residencecould have been foreseeable in lieu of the previous allegations. court felt that HerreraSteele and Mochenoth men the opportunity and the obligation to report accurate information, but they chose to do the opposite. MVH that the misrepresentationcourt that employers who choose to recommend individuals for employment a reasonable duty of care to prospective employers and other third parties. When they decline to utilize reasonable care in their employment references, employers are subject to liability for negligent misrepresentation (Walsh, 2010).
Should it have mattered that the former employer’s investigation was not able to confirm all of the allegations against Herrera? Explain your answer. No, the fact that the former employer’s investigation was not able to confirm all of the allegations against Herrera. The court believed that employers to protect prospective employers and other third parties from harm through the accuracy of their recommendations. The false information does not need to be an explicit dismissal of a particular fact; rather, the failure to provide a claim of negligent or intentional misrepresentation. The case would not have reached this conclusion had the employer refused to provide an employment reference or had provided an accurate assessment of Herrera’s character. The court, however, specifically acknowledged that the former employer could have avoided liability by remaining silent. Silence, remains a prudent strategy for reducing the risk of legal liability; however, employers know well, that silence makes it increasingly difficult to get accurate information that could reduce workplace violence (Mccord, 199). Though the accusations were not judicially heard, Herrera actions could be seen as indications of guilt and that there was some factuality to the charges that hurried Herrera to resign without hearing. Until the time for the resignation, he was still innocent until he was proved guilty. He did not allow the review of the allegations process of the Detention Center to substantiate his guilt or innocence.
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? Based on the decision, the practical implications imply that if an employer decides to provide a recommendation for an employee, it has a fundamental duty to Whether the underlying decision is to expose the existence of a workplace violence issue to a prospective employer or to avoid speaking on the issue, an employer’s response should be made based on the factual information available and under the relevant circumstances of each situation. The decision to provide a reference should be made consciously, carefully, and with sensitivity that the public policy in protecting the safety of workers is one of the central purposes of the employment regulatory laws (Walsh, 2010). Employers must ensure that their references are truthful and nondiscriminatory. Although it may appear to be a “no cost, no risk” decision to agree to provide a favorable employment recommendation for a former employee who has engaged in violent conduct, it could be very costly. According to (1999), it is the dishonest or misrepresented positive reference that frameworks the most significant legal dilemmanegative remarks defamation of character be filed by the ex-employee. Defamation of character is currently the most common cause of action used by former employees to challenge a reference given by a former employer (Mccord, 1999). its purpose serves to point out that not only former employers, but current employers increasingly face the likelihood of being sued for negligence if they fail to sufficiently check the backgrounds of their employees and an employee behaves in some inappropriate manner (Mccord, 1999).
References
McCord, Linnea B. (1999). "Defamation Vs. Negligent Referral." Pepperdine.edu. Graziadio Business Review, Graziadio School of Business and Management. Pepperdine University, volume 2, issues 2.
Walsh, D. J. (2010). Emplloynebt law for Human Resource Practices: 2010 custom edition (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.