Law
Employee-employer hiring relates to the concept of negligence.
Project description
Like you say 100% Plagiarism free, well i need some depth of analysis, unique, and original paper, please. My professor is crazy about Plagiarism.
This assignment will make you think about employee-employer hiring and how it relates to the concept of negligence.
Your answers should display some depth of analysis using certain concepts from chapter 9. Your answer should be in short essay format, with paragraphs. Thus, your submission should not contain the question numbers. It should not encompass more than 2 double spaced pages. Read all the questions first to avoid redundancy. Answer the questions completely. Light, but not heavy research is readily suggested.The research will give meaningful context to the quality of your answers. You should use at least two independent sources and cite them in APA format. (Note: Wikipedia does not count as a reputable source). The questions are:
1- Do temporary agencies have a “duty” to run background checks? If yes, do you think Robert half “breached that duty?”
2- The court ruled against Fox Associates. Was the court correct? How have courts ruled in other similar cases? Should Fox Associates have done its own background check?
3- The fact pattern mentions that Sunbeam suffered similar damages when it failed to do its own background check on Mr. Dunlap, its former CEO. Considering the nature of the position, who was more at fault, Sunbeam or the Executive search agency? How should such high-level positions be treated?
4- Strategically and legally speaking, why do you think the former employers said nothing about Ms. Ross’ history and gave her good recommendations? If you were one of her former employers, how would you acted
5- Develop ONE unique background check policy for your company on employees hired through a search firm or temp agency. Determine whether companies are ever really fully able to protect themselves from employee harm.
Avoiding Permanent Damage from Temporary Help (Taken from Jennings 8th edition)
Because employers have become dependent on temporary workers and the agencies that provide them, an interesting issue has developed with regard to liability: Who is responsible for checking the temporary worker’s background, especially when the temporary worker is offered a permanent position following a temporary stint?
For example, Robert Half International, Inc., had recruited Ms. Tee Ross as a bookkeeper, and she was placed with Fox Associates, Inc., in Chicago. She did so well at the temporary position that Fox hired her permanently.
However, Robert Half had failed to uncover the fact that Ms. Ross had entered a guilty plea to charges that she embezzled $192,873 from a former employer and had been sentenced to four years’ probation and community service. Once hired by Fox, Ms. Ross took blank checks and forged signatures, which resulted in her taking more than $70,000 from the company. Her annual salary was $35,000 when she was hired by Fox.
Fox brought suit against Robert Half to recover the $70,000 plus its $6,600 fee, alleging that Robert Half was negligent in that it failed to verify that Ms. Ross, who had checked “No felony convictions” on her application, indeed had no felony convictions. Please note that two of her previous employers had given good recommendations and never mentioned any issues of dishonesty or embezzlement.
However, a judge dismissed the case, ruling that Robert Half was in the talent business and not the background check or investigation business.
The issue is not limited to staff level. Sunbeam discovered that the executive search firm it used to recruit Al Dunlap did not discover that Mr. Dunlap had been dismissed from two previous executive positions. Sunbeam is reeling from losses resulting from Mr. Dunlap’s tenure as CEO there.
Be sure to consider what you have learned in this chapter on references, defamation, and negligence. Also, refer to the Web sites of various law firms and others advising clients on this issue: http://www.bakerbotts.com.
You can also refer to the statutes of various states that have passed laws on privilege with regard to references: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. For example, you could go to http://www.capitol.state.tx.us to look for the Texas statute.