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 involves whether a person making a recommendation to a prospective employer of another is bound by the actions of the said employee. The case involves a positive, but inaccurate, recommendation of Joseph “Tinie” Herrera as an employee of high character and standards. Herrera had previously been employed at the Dona Ana County Detention Center where his conduct had been under question. He had been under investigation for using his authority as detention sergeant and classification officer to sexually harass female inmates at the detention center. Herrera was accused, in a report authored by Steele, of using his authority over the girls to get sex in exchange for personal favors for them. As Herrera’s immediate supervisor, part of Steele’s job included recommending discipline. His choice would include suspension without pay, demotion in rank, and a possible reassignment away from his accusers. Herrera was informed by Steele on April 5, 1994 that on April 12 he would make these recommendations. Herra resigned before the recommended punishment could take place. However, six days after the resignation, Steele wrote a very impressive, but inaccurate, recommendation to a perspective employer of Herrea. In the letter, he stated how Herrera implemented social programs for the inmates with “imagination and imagination.” (Walsh, 2010) He went on to state that “the Department would suffer” because of his departure and that Herrera would be an excellent employee and as asset to the new company. What he neglected to mention was anything about the accusations that were brought against Herrera, thus making the letter inaccurate and very misleading. The issue is whether or not Steele can he held liable for the actions of Herrera and the