Author of new employment screening blog writes on workplace violence; St. Louis employee engages in same
In a sad coincidence, today, just hours after I received the following post entitled “Workplace Violence and Negligent Hiring,” contributed by John Faris of preemployment screening firm Inquest, this went down in St. Louis:
Shooting reported at Earth City plant
Police surrounded a conveyor belt manufacturing plant in Earth City today after a former employee armed with a shotgun entered the building and began shooting.
At least one worker was believed to be shot during the 3 p.m. rampage . . .
100 police officers were at the scene of the shooting . . .
[T]he gunman left the company a year ago. [Company source] believes he was fired but could not say why.
I hope you’re wondering how he got in the building and whether a former employee could just waltz into your building with a shotgun. I hope that if you’re not sure that you’re doing everything possible to minimize the risk of such a horrific, but increasingly common, occurrence, you hurry up and get a move on . . .
Now, here’s the Inquest-provided post:
Workplace Violence and Negligent Hiring
Violence that occurs at work stems from three sources: outsiders, customers or clients, and current or former employees. Workplace violence committed by current or former employees is on the rise.
Both the emotional trauma and costs associated with workplace violence are staggering. From an employer’s point of view, workplace violence poses a liability threat as well. Negligent hiring, retention or supervision lawsuits can be brought forth against employers, if it can be shown that the employer knew, or should have known through the course of reasonable investigation at the time of hiring, that the employee posed a threat of injury to others.
There are three elements of a negligent hiring claim:
1) the employee must be unfit for employment. This determination is based on the nature of the job and the likelihood that the hiring of an unfit employee will cause harm to others;
(2) the employer must have actual or constructive knowledge of the employee’s unfitness. An employer may be held to possess constructive knowledge of the employee’s unfitness where it would have been disclosed by a reasonable inquiry or investigation;
(3) the employer’s hiring of the unfit employee must be the cause of the third party’s injury.
Negligent hiring lawsuits can cause significant losses for employers, as is evidenced by the following cases:
-Nursing home liable for $235,000 for negligent hiring of unlicensed nurse, with 56 prior criminal convictions, who assaulted 80-year-old visitor (Deerings West Nursing Center v. Scott, 787 S.W. 2d 494 (Tex. App. El Paso 1990)).
-Furniture company liable for $2.5 million for negligent hiring and retention of deliveryman who savagely attacked woman customer in her home (Tallahassee Furniture Co., Inc. v. Harrison).
The most obvious way to avoid workplace violence and the associated negligent hiring liability is to avoid hiring violent people.
One of the best ways to predict a future violent incident is to look at past behavior of prospective employees. This is where pre-employment screening comes into play. Performing criminal background checks on prospective employees can help employers weed out people with a violent past.
Screening cannot predict or prevent 100 percent of violent behavior in the workplace. However, performing background checks can help to reduce the threat. Moreover, if an incident does occur, the fact that a “Reasonable Investigation” was undertaken to determine if the applicant was “Unfit” can help to reduce liability in a negligent hiring suit.
(by John Faris of Inquest ) John has started the Preemployment Screening Blog, which I have added to the bloglines.com blogroll at right under “Blogs, Labor/Employment/HR”
I would add a few points:
(1) Such screening is obviously done not just to reduce negligent hiring liability, but to minimize the risk of violence. Liability concerns too often drive legal/HR decisionmaking. Important as they are, other considerations must play a role. (More on this in another post, as another member of our growing base of highly qualified readers who provides HR-related services has written a great article I plan to post.)
(2) There are some legal questions surrounding how you conduct the screening and what you do with the results. (Am I contradicting point (1)?)
