[Puffer Fish]

Imagine you're business owner, and there is a group of people, or an individual, who you are reluctant to hire to work for your company, because you worry that they may be much more likely to do something that could end up causing a lawsuit that would cost your company a gigantic amount of money.

But it's also illegal for you to discriminate against this specific group of people or person. Not hiring them could also potentially subject you to a lawsuit.

This is a " damned if you do, damned if you don't " situation.

In an increasing number of situations now, courts and juries are holding the business financially responsible for the misconduct committed by their employees, even if the company was not at fault.
Or in some cases, they are blaming the business for hiring that person. Saying that because the employee had something in their history, the business "should have known" and should not have hired that person.


related thread:
Family suing Amazon for accidental death of child caused by driver


Delivery company sued because employee driver committed murder

The mother of a 7-year-old girl who was kidnapped and killed by FedEx driver Tanner Horner has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against them and the contracting company that hired him, Big Topspin.
Filed on February 17, the 18-page lawsuit seeks "fair and reasonable" compensation for "acts and omissions" that led to Strand's murder. The child's father, Jacob Strand previously filed a lawsuit in December 2022.

Strand was playing in the front yard of her father's Paradise home when Horner abducted her. He later admitted to kidnapping and killing the girl before dumping her body.

The lawsuit accuses FedEx and Big Topspin of negligence in their hiring of Horner by failing to properly investigate his criminal history, mental history, and prior employment history; failing to properly train and supervise him; and failing to implement and enforce safety policies and procedures.

"It is about implementing better hiring, training, and supervising practices to prevent vicious killers from arriving at our doorsteps bearing an insignia that has been cultivated to instill trust," the lawsuit states. "It is about preventing billion-dollar organizations from insulating themselves from liability by using fly-by-night contractors instead of acknowledging the responsibility they bear when we trust them to come onto our property, to our doorsteps, and even inside our homes."

Horner had no prior criminal history but had been accused of rape 3 years prior.

Athena Strand's mother files wrongful death lawsuit against FedEx, Big Topspin , by Annie Gimbel, CBS News Texas, February 22, 2023


Job applicant sues FedEx for not hiring them because of criminal history

In November of 2020, plaintiff Henry Franklin completed an online application for a job as a FedEx package handler. Part of the application included Franklin consenting to a background check. Franklin was sent the results of his report but was never contacted to discuss the position or his application.

Franklin's suit alleges that the company violated New York City's Fair Chance Act by conducting the background check and considering his criminal history prior to extending a conditional job offer.

FedEx Applicant in New York Sues Company Over Background Check , March 25, 2021


This seems unfair to businesses and seems to put them in an impossible situation, with unrealistic expectations and demands put on businesses.

The businesses are burdened with the responsibility of something that was never really their fault, requiring taking on a huge amount of legal financial risk.

It seems many who are on the Left don't care, and are quick to lay blame on big businesses, enthusiastic at any excuse to make big businesses pay out money.

[froggo]

The judicial process allows that each matter brought before the court will be handled with specificity to the matter. Why do you think there is a judge present, if not to comb over the specific details of each case? And that's essentially what every case is; something specific where a citizen felt as though they were mistreated or wronged. If they feel they have a legitimate claim they are entitled to make their claim and have it reviewed by the courts. The implication you are making, that a person cannot make a claim if they don't meet such-and-such a standard is a bit alarming, and goes against centuries of judicial practice. Matters aren't discarded for frivolousness prior to being presented to the court. If the court deems it frivolous it will discard the matter, but, again, with fairness, after the matter has been reviewed. Most citizens can see the obviousness of why the courts work in such a manner. A person entering the community by providing goods and services does not get to just have an automatic immunity from scrutiny because it might cost them some hard-earned dollars.

[Puffer Fish]

The judicial process allows that each matter brought before the court will be handled with specificity to the matter.

That's normally a good thing, but in this type of case it can have disadvantages.
The judge and jury may be very prejudiced against the business in either case. Kind of like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

The business will be blamed and held responsible if they hire an individual that they knew was in a much higher risk category, and it led to something very bad happening. But likewise the business could also be blamed and ordered to pay a huge amount of money in a lawsuit because they made it a policy not to hire that category of people.

In fact, in many progressive Left areas, there's a strong mentality to want to automatically hold the business financially responsible for any misconduct their employees might commit on the job.
So this issue even extends to categories that may not be obvious, where the employer fears a lawsuit and feels pressure to pick an applicant whom they feel will present less risk. Even though doing that could be illegal because of discrimination, or even if it is not clearly illegal, could put the business at risk of a discrimination lawsuit.

The problem is, the way lawsuits work, businesses can oftentimes be ordered to pay large amounts of money even if the business wasn't actually truly at fault, or even if the business did not actually commit illegal discrimination. The law and courts are not perfect.

[Puffer Fish]

And that's essentially what every case is; something specific where a citizen felt as though they were mistreated or wronged. If they feel they have a legitimate claim they are entitled to make their claim and have it reviewed by the courts. The implication you are making, that a person cannot make a claim if they don't meet such-and-such a standard is a bit alarming, and goes against centuries of judicial practice. Matters aren't discarded for frivolousness prior to being presented to the court. If the court deems it frivolous it will discard the matter, but, again, with fairness, after the matter has been reviewed. Most citizens can see the obviousness of why the courts work in such a manner. A person entering the community by providing goods and services does not get to just have an automatic immunity from scrutiny because it might cost them some hard-earned dollars.

And then business has to pay a huge amount of money for a lawyer.
They could hire a cheap lawyer, but most lawyers do not want to risk that the lawyer may not do a good job, or might overlook something, which could result in the employer wrongfully losing the lawsuit, even though logically they should not have lost.

In many of these lawsuits, its nearly impossible to ever "prove" anything, and so the courts end up going by "evidence". That means it is very possible for a business to end up wrongfully being ordered to pay money.

[Puffer Fish]

And that's essentially what every case is; something specific where a citizen felt as though they were mistreated or wronged. If they feel they have a legitimate claim they are entitled to make their claim and have it reviewed by the courts. The implication you are making, that a person cannot make a claim if they don't meet such-and-such a standard is a bit alarming, and goes against centuries of judicial practice. Matters aren't discarded for frivolousness prior to being presented to the court. If the court deems it frivolous it will discard the matter, but, again, with fairness, after the matter has been reviewed. Most citizens can see the obviousness of why the courts work in such a manner. A person entering the community by providing goods and services does not get to just have an automatic immunity from scrutiny because it might cost them some hard-earned dollars.

And then the business has to pay a huge amount of money for a lawyer.
They could hire a cheap lawyer, but most lawyers do not want to risk that the lawyer may not do a good job, or might overlook something, which could result in the employer wrongfully losing the lawsuit, even though logically they should not have lost.

In many of these lawsuits, it's nearly impossible to ever "prove" anything, and so the courts end up going by "evidence". That means it is very possible for a business to end up wrongfully being ordered to pay money.
If you think about the nature of discrimination lawsuits, and how "discrimination" could possibly be "proven", this should be obvious.


All this ends up raising costs (and financial risk) for running a business, and the business ends up having to carry those costs over to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

How much do you think a burger restaurant will have to raise their prices to deal with a $1 million lawsuit?

[froggo]

None of what you said matters. the only thing that matters is that the public citizen has a right to make a claim if they feel wronged by a public actor. It's quite simple.

[froggo]

I'm not big an arguing, ( which makes me wonder what im doing at a politicsforum anyways ), but i suppose i'll give you just a little more than what i gave in my last post as a courtesy to your output of effort.

The judge and jury may be very prejudiced against the business in either case.

The judge and jury are not allowed to be prejudiced. (at least, at face-value they are not )

businesses can oftentimes be ordered to pay large amounts of money even if the business wasn't actually truly at fault,

If the business is found at fault in the eyes of the court, then the truth no longer matters; what the court deems happened is what is stood by.

And then business has to pay a huge amount of money for a lawyer.

Smart businesses should always have money set aside for potential legal fees.

its nearly impossible to ever "prove" anything, and so the courts end up going by "evidence"

You are aware of how rigorously judges are trained and experienced in matters of dissecting evidence and drawing conclusion from materials, are you not? In some cases, evidence is proof. And in other cases the judge is well equipped to listen to all the facts, hear all the testimony and draw a sober evaluation of everything that occurred and why it occurred.

"discrimination" could possibly be "proven"

Discrimination can be proven. In the eyes of the court Testimony is Proof. What a person says in a courtroom is binding of their character and their intentions.

All this ends up raising costs (and financial risk) for running a business, and the business ends up having to carry those costs over to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

A business doesn't need this excuse to raise prices on consumers if it thinks that it can get away with raising prices on consumers.
Also, did you know that not all businesses are guaranteed success? Entering a business is a risk-venture, and some businesses fail, whether through faults of their own, or through sheer bad luck.

[Puffer Fish]

The judge and jury are not allowed to be prejudiced. (at least, at face-value they are not )

There's not always clear agreement between what constitutes "unfair prejudice" and what constitutes a reasonable line of thinking.
This is especially true in discrimination lawsuits.

I'll give you an example.
An employee claims to be racially discriminated against. The employer also happens to be a leader of an openly and virulently racist political organisation. Is allowing the jury to hear about that fair, and should they consider that? Would that prejudice the decision to consider that additional evidence, or is it perfectly reasonable and appropriate to consider it?

And then in addition to that, if the evidence should be considered, how much weight should it bear on the decision? Because I think many people are not going to be able to agree on that, and then if the jury is even allowed to hear that information, many of them may inevitably be prejudiced in the case.

What is "prejudice" is not always so clear or agreed upon.

If the business is found at fault in the eyes of the court, then the truth no longer matters; what the court deems happened is what is stood by.

What I do not think you understand is these decisions are not always so black and white.

"Truth" is a bit of a vague and nebulous concept when we are talking about uncertainties, evidence, and interpretation (of both the law and fact).

That's why in many cases it's possible for the outcome to go completely one way or the other, depending on the composition of the jury. In many types of cases, not everyone will agree.

Imagine if I said, for example, "Politics is about truth", and then claimed if two people disagreed, one of them must be a liar or extremely stupid.
We know it's not so simple as that.

For many laws, if absolute proof and certainty were required, virtually no one would ever be able to be found at fault or criminally convicted under those laws.
So as a consequence, there's a tendency to not require absolute proof and certainty.

Can you prove that one person fired another person from employment due to an illegal reason, rather than some other reason? Can you look into their mind to see what they were thinking?


The problem, froggo, is you just assume a judge and jury can somehow usually determine things (no matter what sort of situation it is). You have unrealistic expectations about the system and people. You are also oversimplifying things.
You just make the assumption that somehow they will be able to come to the correct decision. But I think that is unrealistic, in these sorts of cases.