holding that employer has duty to conduct reasonable investigation into employee’s fitness for job as apartment complex manager, but rejecting claim that duty extends to independent investigation of job applicant’s criminal record; court remarks that such a duty would contravene rehabilitative efforts of “individuals, organizations and employees to aid former offenders to re-establish good citizenship, the sine qua non of which is gainful and productive employment”
How later courts described this case
- holding that employer has duty to conduct reasonable investigation into employee’s fitness for job as apartment complex manager, but rejecting claim that duty extends to independent investigation of job applicant’s criminal record; court remarks that such a duty would contravene rehabilitative efforts of “individuals, organizations and employees to aid former offenders to re-establish good citizenship, the sine qua non of which is gainful and productive employment”
- recognizing that concerning a yard man, a production line worker or other such positions where the employee does not pose a high risk of injury to third persons, minimal investigation in hiring is required. However, an apartment manager’s extensive contact with tenants and access to their apartments carries a duty to conduct an adequate background check
- holding doctrine of negligent retention arose out of common law fellow-servant law that imposed duty on employers to select employees who would not endanger fellow employees by their presence on job
- concluding that owner and operator of apartment building were negligent in failing to investigate apartment manager and failure to investigate was proximate cause of tenant’s sexual assault
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WAHL, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the dissent of Justice Scott.