There are many instances when an employer may not be expected to look into a new hire’s criminal background. For instance, a hotel groundskeeper who has no direct access to guest rooms may be subject to different hiring requirements than cleaning personnel who may have keys and direct access to each room. It stands to reason that the groundskeeper may not have to submit to a criminal background check while the cleaning personnel would.
This scenario may have been true in the past, but due to the increase in job-related crimes, savvy employers know that they should require thorough background screening of each and every employee they hire, including, in the case of the hotel groundskeeper, those with no direct access to guests.
The reason for a comprehensive policy of background checks across the board is that it’s not just guests, clients, or customers who sue. Employees themselves have a right to expect to be reasonably safe on the job. And they have the right to hold the employer responsible for ensuring that safety. So, using the example of the hotel groundskeeper, although he may not have direct access to hotel guests:
1. He could commit a crime against a guest even though he has no direct access.
2. He could commit a crime against a coworker.
3. He could commit a crime against someone in the immediate vicinity of the establishment.
4. He could commit a crime against a contractor or vendor present on hotel property.
Looking at such scenarios, it’s a wonder why all employers don’t automatically screen every employee. The reason most don’t, the reason why they play Russian roulette with the safety of their employees, clients, customers, and contractors, is because it can be cost prohibitive to perform background screening on all employees. But, in the long run, inviting a negligent hiring lawsuit just isn’t worth the risk of failing to exercise reasonable care when hiring. After all, a negligent hiring lawsuit can not only be expensive, it can ruin the reputation of an organization. Again, using the example of the hotel employee who rapes a coworker (or a guest!), the hotel could lose a lot of business from the adverse publicity generated by such a lawsuit.
Hindsight is Better than Foresight, but Foresight is Smarter
It seems that in this new age of negligent hiring lawsuits, employers are expected to be clairvoyant. But, victims don’t quite see it the same way. Any employee, guest, client, customer, or contractor who becomes the victim of a crime due to the failure of an employer to thoroughly, if not properly, screen their employees for anything that may affect the rights of the victim can be reasonably considered the responsibility of the employer. This is because it is assumed that it is not just the individual who is responsible for his or her behavior; it is the employer who has to ensure that all employees hired meet a certain standard. After all, victims aren’t likely to receive financial compensation from the perpetrator, are they?
Ultimately, it’s not less expensive to cut corners on pre-employment screening. A lawsuit can be damaging in so many ways. Smart employers require all employees to submit to thorough background screening.
