Negligent Hiring/Retention

of the retrenchment in the "At-Will" Employment Doctrine.(1) The repreive

was short lived, however, as a relatively new employee relations law

scourge has surfaced- The Tort doctrine of negligent hiring/retention.(2)

Although this theory is not new, it's prominenece is growing. This

added cause of action in tort law is resulting in increased employer

liability and risk. Often, Court award outcomes in these cases are in the

hundreds of thousands of dollars, and more, and are likely to be upheld on

The limitations placed on human resources professionals and employers

relating to preemployment inquiries make an interesting contrast to the

negligent hiring dogma. Discrimination law, such as title VII of the civil

rights act of 1964, as written and/or interpreted by the courts, proscribes

many inquiries that have a negative employment-related impact on protected

Plaintiffs also are asking the courts to curb employer access to

employee records and other personal information under the right to privacy

arguement, a constitutional arguement employing fourth amendment illega

It is important to note that plaintiff successes far outweigh

physically assaulted the son of the owner of the (Co) defendant bar, and at

court reaffirmed the ( Williams ) opinion, indicating that when an employer

applicant was convicted and the job for which the person applied. ( See

claims, thus minimizing EEO Challenges.

Some topics in this essay:
Bona Fida, Ga App, Employment Doctrine1, Z&E Inc, Respondeat Superior, KMS Investments, EEO Opinion, Sound Inc, Di Cosala, Hiring Warner, negligent hiring, human resources, negligent hiring/retention, business necessity, duty care, law review, job applicant, disparate impact, punitive damages, business necessity exception, se 2d, negligent hiring theory, human resources professionals, human resources managers, griggs vs duke,