Screening Your Entire Network: The Risks of Neglect and the Consequences of Lost Trust and Lawsuits

Background Screening | September 5, 2024

Is your company currently screening only a portion of the employees and contractors in your network for criminal history?  If so, you may be greatly increasing your risk of negligent hiring and/or retention lawsuits, potentially damaging the reputation of your business, and putting your employees and customers at risk. 

Who you hire matters, every time.  If you are not diligently performing criminal background checks for every individual in your network, you are opening the door to individuals who may have insufficient qualifications- or worse, dangerous propensities and/or previous misdemeanors and felonies on their records, and you could be found liable for any damages done by these individuals once hired. Negligent hiring and/or retention laws vary by state, but generally involve an employer failing to use reasonable care when hiring an employee, and that failure leads to foreseeable harm or damage to others.   As you have likely heard in the news, the cost of failing to provide “reasonable care” is often staggering.  

Not convinced?  Here are a few examples of negligent hiring/retention cases widely covered in recent news: 

• • After surviving a brutal attack, a woman is suing (property owner) and (management company) for negligent hiring practices, premises liability and breach of lease after she claims a maintenance worker they hired raped and tortured her in her apartment home. The same worker- a convicted felon and registered sex offender released in 2022 on parole- is also charged with the killing of a Baltimore tech CEO a few days later.
  • In Florida, a 75-year-old woman’s family is suing (large retailer), (trucking company), and (delivery Service) for her murder by an appliance deliveryman in her home, who stated he was on drugs at the time.
  • Just this past year, (cable company) was ordered to pay more than $7 billion for the murder of an 83-year-old Texas woman after one of its service technicians killed her in her home. This is in addition to the more than $330 million in compensatory damages previously awarded.  This is the largest negligent hiring verdict in recent US history.Going back a bit further to obtain settlement details, other cases are equally shocking: 
    • A man seriously injured on an Indiana interstate when a semitrailer rear-ended his vehicle was awarded more than $54 million (60% of which was found to be the fault of (moving company) for negligent hiring and/or retention).
    • A Michigan jury awarded $12.5 million after a 14-year-old girl was molested in an ambulance by an attendant while being transported between hospitals. (ambulance company) was held responsible for 30% of the settlement for its failure to properly screen the individual, who was a convicted felon.
    • After an 80-year-old visitor was assaulted, (nursing center) was found liable for nearly $250,000 for negligent hiring of an unlicensed nurse with prior convictions.
    • After an in-home caregiver murdered and robbed a man suffering from Cerebral Palsy, a Massachusetts jury awarded the victim’s estate $26.5 million. In this case, the (nursing association) and (health resource) were found equally liable for not screening their employees adequately.  If they would have properly screened this individual, they would have discovered that the ‘nurse’ had six prior felony convictions, and never attended nursing school.

There are, of course, similarities between the cases above.  The lives of the victims were lost or will never be the same.  The lives of their friends and loved ones will be forever affected.  And of course, the prosperity and reputations of the businesses, once trusted and thriving, may never fully recover due to their own negligence. However, it is also important to note that these cases also reveal a wide variety of industries where these crimes took place, conditions under which they occurred, and a broad range of ‘seemingly normal’ individuals who committed the crimes. Litigation was not limited to cases involving employees who enter customer homes- it was fellow employees, vehicle operators, maintenance workers and others. In addition, in hiring and retaining these individuals, employers overlooked not just criminal background screening, but in some cases motor vehicle screening, drug screening, education verification, and reference checking as well, all of which could have potentially helped to prevent these terrible crimes.   

So, how can a company position themselves to protect against these lawsuits?  To start, they should ensure appropriate disciplinary action is taken (and well documented) against any existing employees who display problematic or threatening behavior.  In addition, for any new applicants, employers should always perform their due diligence by performing reasonable and nondiscriminatory checks to ensure: 

• A thorough criminal background check is conducted 

• Previous employers have been verified 

• Employment references and qualifications have been validated 

• Drug and Driving checks are performed as appropriate 

• Business portfolio reports are thoroughly reviewed (company level) 

• Additional tests are completed, depending on industry 

There is sibling legal theory called negligent retention that has been used against companies for retaining unqualified workers. For example, in this scenario, a worker commits an offense off duty and does not inform their employer. Annual or one or our continuous monitoring programs may protect you from retaining an unfit worker.  

PlusOne Screening Solutions is here to help you ensure that your employees and customers are safe, and that your business is protected against costly litigation.  To learn more about our services, CLICK HERE.  For additional questions, or to request a quote, call us today at: (833) 447-5871.