In nowadays, background check of hiring employee is practicing by almost all agencies. Point is that, the skills of the applicant can be, somehow, figured out. It is much more difficult to assess the level of trust, honesty, mental toughness, and loyalty. Reading through chapter 9, and conducting a slight research, my answers to the questions of the given scenario are as follows: 1.
Do temporary agencies have a “duty” to run background checks? If so, did Robert half “breach that duty?” Why or Why not? According to the law of negligence, temporary agencies should follow the duty policy on background check on pre-employment, in order not to satisfy an element of negligence. In case of Robert Half International Inc., and Fox Associates, Inc., I don’t think, that duty was breached, the company trusted to provided information by Ms. Ross about herself, and she got good recommendations from her former employers. At some extend, it is a background check. 2.
The court ruled against Fox Associates. Was the court correct? Do you think Fox should have done its own background check? Why or Why not? I agree with the court decision, that it was determined that duty is not breached, because it happened unknowingly. Even though the company recommended the employee, Fox could do its own background check as well. 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. Who was more at fault, Sunbeam or the Executive search agency? In this case, the fault has an Executive search agency more, than Sunbeam, as it its straight duty to check background before approve for hiring. However, Sunbeam is liable for its losses also, because it should request and check the information about hiring employer. 4.
Strategically and legally speaking, why do you think the former employers said nothing about Ms. Ross’ history and gave her good recommendations? There could be some reasons: 1). the former...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document