The Experts below are selected from a list of 297 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Brian H Kleiner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Effective employment screening in the American health care industry
Management Research News, 2003Co-Authors: Vonny Martanegara, Brian H KleinerAbstract:The purpose of this article is to show the importance of pre‐employment screening for hospitals. Pre‐employment screening in the Hiring process is a must for hospitals, especially in the health care industry, where financial damages and lawsuits for hospitals recently increased because of Negligent Hiring. The information in this article is based on books about human resources in the health care industry, journals about medicine and law, and mostly articles from outsourced screening firms that provide service in the health care field. The scope of the article is to show the effectiveness of employee screening for hospitals in order to prevent or minimise lawsuits because of Negligent Hiring. Based on information about the benefits of employment screening in the health care industry, it is important for hospitals to implement “due diligence” by including screening programmes in their Hiring process. The screening process can be done in‐house or be delegated to outside service providers that match the criteria. It is better to outsource these tasks so that hospitals can focus on other human resources tasks such as managing their employees to improve services for their visitors or customers.
-
new developments concerning Negligent Hiring in municipal governments
Management Research News, 2003Co-Authors: Jiang Zhao, Brian H KleinerAbstract:Focuses on a lack of reasonable care in the employment selection process leading to litigation in the human resources field in the USA. Uses sample cases to show neglect in these areas, including a wrongful shooting death in Sacramento among others. Posits that a simple way to ensure that employers hire only safe and competent employees is for prior employers to provide as much information as possible about potential employees.
-
new developments concerning Negligent Hiring in public schools
Management Research News, 2003Co-Authors: Mark J Dorris, Brian H KleinerAbstract:Chronicles what “due care” is and how it applies in the public school area of the USA. Highlights a New York Supreme Court case with regard to an assault by a teacher on two students in their home; and also an Akron City court case brought against an education board employee who was accused of abuse. Lists some safeguards to try to prevent such actions having to be brought: the application forms, interviews, background checks, and reference checks. Stresses there is no valid reason for schools not engaging in full and thorough investigations of all applicants.
-
Conducting effective and legally safe background and reference checks
Managerial Law, 2002Co-Authors: Rex M. Edwards, Brian H KleinerAbstract:Cites that rapid changes in legislation have put special importance on the careful and effective performance of reference checking. Gives some brief statistics from a survey into this subject. Discusses Negligent Hiring lawsuits and the requirements for such a valid claim. Provides a list of documents which would help employers defend such a claim. Covers the background check and the type of investigation which may be undertaken before looking at the reference check including how to make contact, what to ask for in references, the documentation of such checks, and alternatives to inhouse checking.
-
understanding and preventing Negligent Hiring
Management Research News, 2000Co-Authors: Mindie N Le, Brian H KleinerAbstract:States that there is a growing concern regarding the potential liability from Negligent Hiring within the university and public sector. Considers the lack of insurance cover in this area. Discusses the measures employees can take to limit their exposure to this problem, covering the key points stated in most legal claims. Urges employees to immediately contact a lawyer if sued due to the short timescale to respond.
Herff L Moore - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
preventing workplace violence from Negligent Hiring in healthcare
Journal of Nursing Administration, 2004Co-Authors: Don B Bradley, Herff L MooreAbstract:Negligent Hiring is emerging as one of the prime causes of healthcare employer liability for workplace violence. Healthcare administrators have been found liable for violent acts of employees both within and outside their normal scope of employment. The authors discuss Negligent Hiring doctrine and what the US courts have decided on Negligent Hiring cases. The discussion shows how liability in healthcare institutions can occur, and how the respondeat superior doctrine may no longer serve to limit employer liability. The authors suggest how to develop screening practices to reduce work-place violence and minimize Negligent Hiring lawsuits. Language: en
-
Small Business Hiring Mistakes Can Lead to Workplace Violence
Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 2002Co-Authors: Don B Bradley, Herff L MooreAbstract:ABSTRACT Small business workplaces have become battlegrounds in more small firms than ever. Negligent Hiring is emerging as one of the contributing factors contributing to small business employer liability for workplace violence. Small business owner managers have been found liable for violent acts of their employees both within and outside their normal scope of employment. From a small business management perspective, the authors analyze Negligent Hiring doctrine, along with the law of respondeat superior which may limit liability, considering what the U.S. courts are saying and how small business liability can occur. Owner managers who develop sound background checking practices may both reduce workplace violence and minimize resultant Negligent Hiring lawsuits. INTRODUCTION Beyond what outside employees and customers commit, violence by employees at work appears to be getting more attention each year. For instance, Neuman and Baron (1997) found that Americans encounter media coverage at least weekly with stories of employees taking aggressive, even violent actions against others at work and beyond. Burke (2000) noted that even though crime statistics suggest improvements have occurred in selected cities, workplace violence increased tenfold in the 1990s. Results from Warchol (1998) in the the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) confirm that more than two million U.S. residents become victims of work-related violence annually. Moreover, employers are increasingly being sued for Negligent Hiring as a result of work-related violence. Many small business owner managers are now realizing that there employee and Hiring policy practices may particularly be implicated when violent incidents happen in their own backyards. A case that occurred at a warehouse and manufacturing facility owned by Union Butterfield Corporation and Dormer Tools, Inc., illustrates how easily any small business can become entangled in workplace violence liability when employee practices are not sufficiently effective. EXAMPLE CASE In a North Carolina case decided in mid-1999, warehouse worker James Davis returned two days after his termination and shot two managers to death. Finding him guilty, the jury ordered the two companies to share the liability and pay $7.9 million to the families of the two employees for failing to protect their workers. Although employees had told the managers of both companies that they thought Davis would return to murder people, the managers determined that he posed no significant threat and elected not to hire armed security guards for protection. After discussing the possible danger, they decided to simply lock the front door and tell the receptionist to keep an eye out for him-but no one ever relayed even that message (Bahls & Bahls, 2001). In many cases, an injured employee could show that the employer intentionally ignored risk liability. Alternatively, the family of, or the injured employee would have to go after another potentially liable party, such as a franchiser, landlord, or property manager. In this case two employers shared management of the same facility, so the court held one company liable for the death of employees at the other. But what if an employee only injures a customer or other third party? Suppose a business sends an outside salesman to private homes as part of their normal selling duties, and this person assaults a customer. Section 5(a)(1) of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to exercise reasonable care in maintaining a safe place of employment [29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1)] (Flynn, 2000). So, being off the premises, with the salesman acting outside the scope of his duties, it was unlikely in the past that the law would attribute liability to the employer. However, in recent years, the courts have been moving strongly to make employers more responsible. Do Ian (2000) found that the courts have been dropping the "scope of employment" concept as the basis for employer responsibility in employee intentional wrongdoing. …
-
Negligent Hiring the emerging contributor to workplace violence in the public sector
Public Personnel Management, 2001Co-Authors: Jack N Kondrasuk, Herff L Moore, Hua WangAbstract:In this era when workplaces have become “battle zones,” Negligent Hiring is emerging as a contributing source of employer liability for violence. Public employers have been found liable for violent acts of employees both within and outside their normal scope of employment. The authors analyze Negligent Hiring doctrine from a human resource management perspective, considering what the U.S. courts are saying and how employer liability can occur. Public employers can develop sound background-checking policies and practices that could both reduce workplace violence and minimize resultant Negligent Hiring lawsuits.
Fred R David - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Negligent Hiring and retention some evidence of hospital vulnerability
Health Care Management Review, 1991Co-Authors: James W Fenton, Jerry L Kinard, Fred R DavidAbstract:: Hospital human resource managers were surveyed to determine their understanding of Negligent Hiring employment law and the tools used in employment screening. This article describes the results, which indicate that hospital human resource managers understand the law but that there are gaps in the use of some employment screening tools. The authors make recommendations for future research.
Jerry L Kinard - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Negligent Hiring are hospitals vulnerable
Public Personnel Management, 1991Co-Authors: Jerry L Kinard, Stanley RenasAbstract:Historically, an employer has been held liable for the criminal acts of his employee if one could show that the employee was acting within the scope of his/her employment. Today, an employer can be held liable for crimes committed by an employee even if those actions are not job-related. Injured persons are mow claiming that employers are guilty of "Negligent Hiring." They contend that employers are liable for damages caused by their employees if they fail to conduct a thorough pre-employment background investigation of employees who later commit crimes. Health care facilities and other organizations that invite the public onto their premises have a heightened responsibility to protect their patients and guests from the criminal acts of their employees. Yet one study shows that only one in five hospitals checks the criminal records of job applicants. In many instances, employers who attempt to investigate the background of job applicants are thwarted in their efforts by previous employers who refuse to divulge vital information. More and more, employers who provide "damaging" information on job applicants find themselves being sued for invasion of privacy. Since 1979, when Avis Rent-A-Car was judged guilty of negligence for failing to discover that an employee who committed rape and had previously committed other crimes, employers have been wrestling with the issues of Negligent Hiring, Negligent supervision, and Negligent retention. In recent years, a growing list of employers have been found guilty of inadequate pre-employment screening. * In Rhode Island, a security company was held liable for employing an individual who was judged guilty of conspiring to steal gold from one of them firm's customers.[1] * A Florida appellate court ruled that a condominium manager (employer) could be held accountable for the Negligent employment of a maintenance person who entered one of the company's condos with his pass key and attacked a woman there.[2] * A Forth Worth, Texas cab company was held liable for the Negligent Hiring of a taxi cab driver who raped, sodomized, and robbed a female fare.[3] * A Virginia court ruled that a church could be held liable for the Negligent Hiring of a worker who was charged with raping and sexually abusing a child. In this case, the appellate court stated that the church knew or should have known that the employee was on parole for a conviction of sexual assault at the time he was employed.[4] * An Indiana motel was ordered to pay compensatory and punitive damages of $750,000 to a guest who was beaten and severely injured by a security guard whose violent reputation was known by the employer.[5] These case succinctly illustrate the importance of carefully and thoroughly screening job applicants. Hospitals, religious institutions, and other employers who invite the public onto their premises must be particularly careful. In fact, courts have bound that hospitals enter into an implied contract with their patients whereby the hospitals assures the patient that it will employ competent and reliable employees.[6] The Development of the "Negligent Hiring" Doctrine Historically, an employer has been held liable for the criminal acts of his employee if one could show that the employee was acting within the scope of his/her employment. Consequently, lawsuits were frequently brought against employers under the theory of respondent superior, a doctrine that holds the employers liable for the Negligent, on-the-job actions of his/her employees. Recently, a subtle change in the law has occurred. Today, employers can be held for the criminal actions of their employees even if those actions are not job-related. More and more, injured persons claim the employer is guilty of "Negligent Hiring. …
-
Negligent Hiring and retention some evidence of hospital vulnerability
Health Care Management Review, 1991Co-Authors: James W Fenton, Jerry L Kinard, Fred R DavidAbstract:: Hospital human resource managers were surveyed to determine their understanding of Negligent Hiring employment law and the tools used in employment screening. This article describes the results, which indicate that hospital human resource managers understand the law but that there are gaps in the use of some employment screening tools. The authors make recommendations for future research.
James W Fenton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Employment Reference Checking, Firm Size, and Defamation Liability
Journal of Small Business Management, 1992Co-Authors: James W Fenton, Kay W. LawrimoreAbstract:Conducting routine inquiries into a job applicant's background has been a time-honored ritual of employers. In particular, the tool known as the "reference check," has long been a part of the bulwark of pre-employment inquiry. This practice has been further reinforced by courts of law in cases involving alleged Negligent Hiring and retention (Fenton 1990). The most common employer mistake that leads to liability for Negligent Hiring and retention is the failure to adequately investigate the background of an applicant when Hiring certain types of employees (Usry and Mosier 1991). Further, research has shown that the more frequently an employer checks references, the less likely the employer to experience employee related problems including absenteeism, tardiness, attitude, and work quality and quantity (Bergmann, Decker, and Lorentz 1990). Interestingly, however, in the litigious environment of the 1980s and 1990s, the reference check has become a focal issue in court suits where ex-employee plaintiffs sue defendant ex-employers, alleging defamation of character and breach of privacy rights when the reference has resulted in a job applicant being refused employment (Decker 1988). Defamation in the context of employment is a common law personal inquiry allegation where the employer is alleged to have given false written or oral statements about a former employee. Libel is a type of defamation that addresses written or printed statements that invade a person's interest in reputation and good name. Slander, on the other hand, is spoken defamation (Keeton 1984). For a plaintiff to prove a claim of defamation in court, it must be proven that: (1) a statement has been made about him or her to another person; (2) the statement is false; (3) the statement must be "published," meaning transmitted to a third party; and, (4) the statement harms the reputation of the plaintiff by lowering his or her esteem or stature in the community or with other persons (Jacobs 1989). The bulk of all defamation court actions today are employment related (Middleton 1987). According to a survey published in 1988, fully one-third of all slander and libel cases were brought against employers for statements made about ex-employees to prospective employers. Verdicts were given to plaintiffs in an astounding 77 percent of these cases with average damages amounting to $166,094.00 (Agnew 1988).(1) Plaintiffs in defamation cases can typically seek both compensatory and punitive damages. Compensatory damages compensate an injured party only for injuries actually sustained and proved to have arisen directly from the defendant's actions. Punitive, or exemplary, damages are designed to punish a guilty party, making an example of the party in order to deter similar future conduct. Typically, punitive damage requests are significantly greater than basic compensatory requests. The authors of this study sought through the use of exploratory research to assess the small business manager's understanding of liability when responding to employment reference checks. Specifically, we sought to determine whether small firms are more or less willing than large firms to provide information about past employees? Additional inquiries sought to investigate differences among specific types of businesses (hotel/motel, banking, manufacturing) relative to their willingness to respond to employment reference checks. Considering plaintiff success rates (77 percent) in employment-related defamation suits, small business employers face a high level of risk from this type of court action. As such, this research is viewed as being important to both the small business-person and academic researcher. METHODOLOGY Sample Using the 1990 edition of the South Carolina Manufacturers and Banking Directories, 890 chief executive officers were randomly selected. Table 1 shows the job level of those managers who responded to the survey. Respondents represented a variety of industries including banking and finance, manufacturing and service industries (including food service) and hotel-motel. …
-
Negligent Hiring and retention some evidence of hospital vulnerability
Health Care Management Review, 1991Co-Authors: James W Fenton, Jerry L Kinard, Fred R DavidAbstract:: Hospital human resource managers were surveyed to determine their understanding of Negligent Hiring employment law and the tools used in employment screening. This article describes the results, which indicate that hospital human resource managers understand the law but that there are gaps in the use of some employment screening tools. The authors make recommendations for future research.
