Respond to at least two of your fellow students’ posts in a substantive manner. Agree or disagree with your classmate’s position. Defend your position by using information from the week’s readings or examples from current events. 1.  Discuss What duty or duties a business has with regard to checking the background of potential employees before hiring. Though employers may either: request the criminal background check and not verify it, verify the background information, or not request it all, when it comes to cases of negligence employers must be able to go through a reasonable evaluation and screening process when selecting candidates to represent their business. Through resources available to them for nominal fees, resources including background and criminal checks, employers can make determinations on who is fit for employment in their specific field through a rigorous hiring process. Moreover, "Assuming that the employer has access to some information about the employee" it is generally accepted that, "the employer must determine whether or not that information would be sufficient to impose liability if that employee later causes harm" (Hickox, 2011). Basically, employers have the opportunity to gain information, interview and screen candidates, and so they inherit the responsibility regarding who they employ. Do you agree that businesses should be liable for injuries resulting from negligent hiring? Why or why not? Yes, I do believe that businesses should be liable for injuries resulting from negligent hiring and supervision. When it comes to criminal cases, the responsible should be held liable, but for punitive damages and civil cases, the employer should share in the liability. In  Maloney v B&L Motor Freight Inc.  the company failed to properly screen a candidate who had a history of violence and sexual assault and their negligence in part led to the victim's injuries. In other cases, if an employer fails to properly protect themselves, by running a very basic criminal background/history check, they assume the responsibilities that come with their decision. Although not all crimes are foreseeable, and some crimes are committed without warning, the employer must prove that they have done everything to a reasonable extent within their power to prevent injuries to any other person or company by their employee. Hickox, S. (2011). Employer liability for negligent hiring of ex-offenders.  Saint Louis University Law Journal ,  55 , 1001. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/ [email protected] 2&vid=5&hid=4210 Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers .   San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. 2.  Hi class, Over the years, I have learned through reading entrepreneurship and business related books, that a business should not hire on the first interview, but rather after subsequent interviews and background check (depending on the type of business or industry).  An interviewer learns .

1. Respond to at least two of your fellow students’ posts in a
substantive manner.
Agree or disagree with your classmate’s position. Defend your
position by using information from the week’s readings or
examples from current events.
1.
Discuss What duty or duties a business has with regard to
checking the background of potential employees before hiring.
Though employers may either: request the criminal background
check and not verify it, verify the background information, or
not request it all, when it comes to cases of negligence
employers must be able to go through a reasonable evaluation
and screening process when selecting candidates to represent
their business. Through resources available to them for nominal
fees, resources including background and criminal checks,
employers can make determinations on who is fit for
employment in their specific field through a rigorous hiring
process. Moreover, "Assuming that the employer has access to
some information about the employee" it is generally accepted
that, "the employer must determine whether or not that
information would be sufficient to impose liability if that
employee later causes harm" (Hickox, 2011). Basically,
employers have the opportunity to gain information, interview
and screen candidates, and so they inherit the responsibility
regarding who they employ.
Do you agree that businesses should be liable for injuries
resulting from negligent hiring? Why or why not?
Yes, I do believe that businesses should be liable for injuries
resulting from negligent hiring and supervision. When it comes
to criminal cases, the responsible should be held liable, but for
punitive damages and civil cases, the employer should share in
the liability. In
Maloney v B&L Motor Freight Inc.

2. the company failed to properly screen a candidate who had a
history of violence and sexual assault and their negligence in
part led to the victim's injuries. In other cases, if an employer
fails to properly protect themselves, by running a very basic
criminal background/history check, they assume the
responsibilities that come with their decision. Although not all
crimes are foreseeable, and some crimes are committed without
warning, the employer must prove that they have done
everything to a reasonable extent within their power to prevent
injuries to any other person or company by their employee.
Hickox, S. (2011). Employer liability for negligent hiring of ex-
offenders.
Saint Louis University Law Journal
,
55
, 1001. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-
library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/
[email protected]
2&vid=5&hid=4210
Seaquist, G. (2012).
Business law for managers
.
San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
2.
Hi class,
Over the years, I have learned through reading entrepreneurship
and business related books, that a business should not hire on
the first interview, but rather after subsequent interviews and
background check (depending on the type of business or
industry). An interviewer learns much more about an
interviewee with multiple interviews. Interviews are human
based factor that confirms the information on a resume is

3. consistent with either or combination of in-person behavioral,
team, and stress interview questions or scenarios. Hiring the
wrong person cost time, money, and possible litigation for
failing to get the right person, with the right skills, and the right
values on the bus in order to put him/her in the right seat is
vital to the prevention of future issues of either not being a
team player, hidden past coming out, or being incompetent
(lacking aptitude to perform the job). According to Hauswirth
(2009), “If recruiting and hiring practices are careless, a
company can face unexpected and unwelcome consequences.
Negligent hiring resulting from one bad hire could embroil a
company in a lawsuit, resulting in potentially detrimental
financial consequences and damage to the company's reputation
— classic risk management dilemmas.
”
I do agree a business should be liable for hiring of an employee
who’s either incompetent, untrained, or has criminal past
associated or in-line with the type of business. Day care owners
are in a risky business of attempting to hire the right people,
because it requires no formal advance education like possessing
a bachelor’s degree. If a daycare owner unknowingly hires a
person with a criminal background of assault, child
endangerment or neglect, or the daycare failed to have adequate
supervision and a child get hurt, then this daycare owner (or
LLC) is negligent in his/her duties to provide a safe
environment for both employees and children.
Reference
Hauswirth, W. (2009, August).
Negligent Hiring
: Employer Risk. ISO Review. Retrieved on 02 Sept 2014 from,
http://www.iso.com/Research-and-Analyses/ISO-
Review/Negligent-Hiring-Employer-Risk.html.
3.
hould employers be permitted to discriminate based upon
attractiveness?
Yes, I believe that employers should be able to discriminate

4. based upon general attractiveness. Many businesses are driven
by sales and if a customer feels uncomfortable when approached
by a salesperson on the floor, this may be a deterrent from them
making a purchase. The opposite argument is that an attractive
salesperson may be able to drive sales if people feel that person
is more approachable. Many industries: television, modeling,
etc., may not have guidelines about how an employee must look,
but it would be a fallacy to say that these industries do not take
into account how a person looks when making employment
decisions. I do not, however, feel that attractiveness should be
the sole factor for making an employment decision. There
should be many reasons why someone is hired or not, and how a
person looks is often times a weighted factor.
If, however, an employer tells a specific candidate that they did
not hire them because they are not attractive, that person may
file a discrimination lawsuit against the potential employer. It
would then be up to the employer to prove that their company
would suffer damages from hiring the person and that
attractiveness is a viable reason to either hire or not hire
someone. I do believe that how someone looks goes into the
hiring process. Most people put on nice clean clothes and get
haircuts etc. when applying for a new job. If an employer feels
that the way you look is inappropriate or not attractive toward
their customer base, they have the right to "hold that against
you" to a reasonable extent.
4.
Hi class,
Each of us was conceived without permission and unknowingly
entered this world lacking knowledge of the destructive
disparities set before us by some folks through the
discrimination of someone’s color, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, gender, age, disability, or pregnancy. As we develop
mentally and physically from adolescents to adults, we learn
and are engrained with the morals, values, discipline, kindness,
respectfulness, courage, poise, and other positive attributes our

5. parents instilled in us. Unfortunately for some folks, negative
attitudes and behavior are also learned and engrained, thus,
depositing these individuals into society to do more harm than
good. These individuals go on to become law makers
(politicians), business leaders, professors, teachers, doctors,
lawyers, and just plain ole’ employees looking to keep some one
down.
Therefore, my argument is to take the side of an employer
whom should not be permitted by law to discriminate against
persons who are not attractive. To go a step further, it’s not the
employer who is discriminating; it’s the human in the leadership
or influential position who is discriminating against another.
Everyone deserves to be treated humanely, because we have no
control over our development in what shade of color we
become, what ethnicity, what nationality, what gender, whether
we’d be fat, skinny, handsome, or gorgeous, or possible, born
with a disability. A reasonable person standard would have the
courage to stand up for someone who is struggling, battling by
him or herself. If you see something wrong, say something
right.