EMPLOYER LIABILITY AND DISCRIMINATION

THIS IS 3 SEPARATE ASSIGNMENTS. PLEASE DO NOT COMBINE THEM!

#1

Read Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight, Inc. in Section 21.2 of your textbook. Discuss what duty or duties a business has with regard to checking the background of potential employees before hiring.  Do you agree that businesses should be liable for injuries resulting from negligent hiring? Why, or why not?

 

please find the link to the Article attached.

 

#2

Not all discrimination is prohibited by law. For example, employers routinely discriminate between potential employees based upon education or experience. Other types of discrimination are more subtle, but still legal. For example, some employers discriminate between potential employees based upon personal characteristics such as weight or attractiveness. Should employers be permitted to discriminate based upon attractiveness? Take a side and argue that an employer should or should not be permitted by law to discriminate against persons who are not attractive.

 

#3

Anti-Discrimination Laws Related to Employment

 

Your supervisor has placed you in charge of hiring a new, full-time administrative assistant for your department.

• Prepare an advertisement for that position that complies with federal law. This advertisement must be detailed. The minimum length of your job description must be 300 words (approximately three-fourths of a page). You can make up the job details but must include the following:
• A job description
• A description of the job duties
• A description of the minimum qualifications
• Prepare 10 illegal questions that must not be asked. For each question, be sure to justify your reasoning.
• Prepare 10 legal questions that may be asked during the interview. For each question, be sure to justify each question.

 

Submit your three- to five-page paper (not including the title and reference pages). Your paper must be formatted to APA style as outlined in the approved APA style guide and must cite at least three scholarly sources in addition to the textbook.

Cases to Consider: Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight, Inc.

Malorney v. B&L Motor Freight, Inc., 146 Ill. App.3d 265, 496 N.E.2d 1086 (1986)

Edward Harbour applied for a position of over-the-road driver with defendant B&L. On the employment application,Harbour was questioned as to whether he had any vehicular offenses or other criminal convictions. His response to thevehicular question was verified by B&L; however, his negative answer regarding criminal convictions was not verified byB&L. In fact, Harbour had a history of convictions for violent sex-related crimes and had been arrested the year prior to hisemployment with B&L for aggravated sodomy of two teenage hitchhikers while driving an over-the-road truck for anotheremployer. Upon being hired by B&L, Harbour was given written instructions and regulations, including a prohibition againstpicking up hitchhikers in a B&L truck.

Subsequently, on January 24, 1978, at an Indiana toll-road plaza, Harbour picked up plaintiff Karen Malorney, a 17-year-oldhitchhiker. In the sleeping compartment of his truck, he repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted plaintiff, threatened to killher, and viciously beat her. After being released, plaintiff notified police. Harbour was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to50 years with no parole.

Plaintiff’s complaint charges defendant B&L with recklessness and willful and wanton misconduct in negligently hiringHarbour as an over-the-road driver without adequately checking his background and providing him a vehicle with asleeping compartment. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages from B&L.

Defendant B&L filed a motion for summary judgment contending that it had no duty to verify Harbour’s negative responseto the question regarding criminal convictions. In denying defendant’s motion, the trial court found that (1) Harbour washired as an over-the-road driver and furnished with a truck equipped with sleeping quarters; (2) B&L instructed Harbournot to pick up hitchhikers; and (3) it is common knowledge that hitchhikers frequent toll plazas which would show thatB&L knew drivers are prone to give rides to hitchhikers. The court concluded that these facts show that B&L had a duty tocheck Harbour’s criminal background and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal.

Defendant argues that it had no duty to investigate Harbour’s nonvehicular criminal background nor to verify his denialthereof because of a lack of foreseeability that he would use the truck to pick up and sexually assault a hitchhiker. Toimpose such a duty would be against public policy by placing too great a burden on employers. On the other hand, plaintiffposits the argument that factual issues exist which preclude summary judgment and require a jury determination. We agreeand must affirm the trial court for the following reasons. Defendant correctly argues that the existence of a duty is aquestion of law to be determined by the court, rather than by the factfinder. However, once a duty has been found, thequestion of whether the duty was properly performed is a fact question to be decided by the trier of fact, whether court orjury.

The existence of a legal duty is not dependent on foreseeability alone, but includes considerations of public policy and socialrequirements. In Illinois, two duties, among others not pertinent here, are imposed by law on owners of vehicles whopermit or hire other persons to drive on our highways. The first duty requires that the degree of care which an ownershould exercise in selecting a driver is that which a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances. An owneror employer also owes a duty in connection with the entrustment of vehicles to others. In other words, a vehicle owner hasa duty to deny the entrustment of a vehicle to a driver it knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence could haveknown, is incompetent. In addition to these duties, it is well settled in Illinois that a cause of action exists against anemployer for negligently hiring a person the employer knew, or should have known, was unfit for the job.

B&L contends that a reasonable and prudent motor carrier could not foresee that one of its drivers would rape and assaulta hitchhiker. The court in Neering v. Illinois Central R.R. Co. in discussing foreseeability stated that the ultimate injury mustbe the natural and probable result of the negligent act or omission such that an ordinary and prudent person ought to haveforeseen as likely its occurrence as a result of the negligence. It is not essential that one should have foreseen the preciseinjury which resulted from the act or omission. This interpretation thus requires an employer to exercise that degree of carereasonably commensurate with the perils and hazards likely to be encountered in the performance of an employee’s duty,i.e., such care as a reasonably prudent person would exercise in view of the consequences that might reasonably beexpected to result if an incompetent, careless, or reckless agent were employed for a particular duty.

Applying these principles to the present case, it is clear that B&L had a duty to entrust its truck to a competent employee fitto drive an over-the-road truck equipped with a sleeping compartment. Lack of forethought may exist where one remains involuntary ignorance of facts concerning the danger in a particular act or instrumentality, where a reasonably prudentperson would become advised, on the theory that such ignorance is the equivalent of negligence. Bearing in mind the factsthat B&L gave Harbour an over-the-road vehicle with a sleeping compartment and that B&L probably knew, or should haveknown, that truckers are prone to give rides to hitchhikers despite rules against such actions, the question now becomesone of fact—whether B&L breached its duty to hire a competent driver who was to be entrusted with a B&L over-the-roadtruck.

Regarding defendant’s public-policy argument, there is no evidence in the record to justify the contention that the cost ofchecking on the criminal history of all truck-driver applicants is too expensive and burdensome when measured against thepotential utility of doing so. Finally, we note that a question of foreseeability is at times a question for the court and attimes, if varying inferences are possible, a question for the jury. In the present case, B&L did have a duty to check intoHarbour’s background so as to ascertain whether he would be a fit employee. Based on the circumstances of this case, it isapparent that reasonable persons could arrive at different conclusions as to whether B&L used due care in the performanceof this duty when it employed Harbour. Questions which are composed of such qualities sufficient to cause reasonablepersons to arrive at different results should never be determined as matters of law. Questions of negligence, due care, andproximate cause are questions of fact to be determined by the factfinder.

In affirming the trial court’s denial of summary judgment, we are not expressing any opinion as to the resolution of thefacts in this case. Plaintiff has the heavy burden of proving that defendant B&L negligently performed a duty it owed her inentrusting Harbour with an over-the-road truck, and if negligence is found, that it proximately caused her injury. Thesequestions, inclu