Holding employers responsible for actions committed by an employee?

Should employers be held financially responsible for crimes committed by individual workers?

This is a big legal issue in our society that is not being discussed.


I say no, absolutely no, or at least mostly no. But it seems standard practice to think that employers automatically should be responsible.


And the second part of this, even if employers should be held responsible, how much exactly should they be held responsible financially for the crime? 100% completely? only partially, like 10%?


related threads to give some examples:
Business ordered to pay $7 billion to family of victim murdered by employee
BS: women get lots of money for sexual harassment
Should the Catholic Church have to give any money to abuse survivors?

 

if the corporation knows and does nothing... then yes

or in the Church's case... Cover it up... and move them to new victims... then yes

 

Hold them 100% financially responsible for the crime, just as if the corporation itself had done the crime?
Or maybe only hold the corporation partly responsible?

Which sounds fair to you?

And why do I get the feeling a lot of Leftists just use this as a convenient excuse to get a large corporation with deep pockets to pay out an arbitrarily humongous amount of money?

How about a situation (as commonly occurs) where a corporation does not know for certain, but just knows there have been several accusations against one of their employees?

And why should the corporation be the one responsible? Isn't law enforcement the ones who should be responsible for that sort of thing? Adult victims are free to file police reports.

I think it's absurd to hold the corporation responsible for reports that the victims could just as easily have given to police.

 

hold them 100% responsible for their part in the crime... this will be a lot more $$$ - next time they will work to protect employee\customers maybe

hold the employee 100% responsible for their part in the crime

 

if an employee comes up with a patent idea while working for a corp, does the corp give the employee 100% of the patent rights

 

That still sounds kind of vague and confusing. Do you mean hold them 100% responsible for the crimes committed by the employee, or responsible only for the employer's part in the crime continuing? Because those are two very different things.

And what exactly is the "employer's part" in the crime? Because the employer did not actually commit the crime or directly cause damages. So how do you quantify that into money terms? (assuming the employee is the one actually responsible for committing the crimes)

How about we just put people in prison and no payouts of money?
(except unless money has actually been stolen)

 

if the corporation knows and does nothing... then yes... they are 100% responsible for their own actions as a corporation

do you think a cover up, like the church did, should not make them financially liable for the harm they caused?

 

That's still vague. What does that even mean?

The corporation itself did not directly cause any damages.

What you are doing, you are imposing a financial obligation on employers to stop employing workers whom the employer suspects of wrongdoing.
Even when the employer does not know for sure.

Shouldn't this be a job for law enforcement?
I can understand if the employer is in possession of information that law enforcement could not know about, but what about in cases where the issue is all about accusations made by those who were wronged? That's something law enforcement could just as easily deal with as the employer. The burden should not be on the employer in that case.

Why should the employer be responsible? Any more than some random individual person who knows about or has reason to strongly suspect a crime but does not report it.

 

Can it be said that the corporation really "caused" the crime?

Or did the corporation simply just not act to prevent it?

I think those are two very different things with very different ethical implications. But some may disagree.

 

What if law enforcement should have arrested the worker but did not?
(like if there are already 8 women who have accused a man of illegal sexual misconduct)

Still think it is fair to hold the employer financially responsible?

Shouldn't the government be seen as the ones who are responsible in that situation?

 

if 8 separate women went to HR, that seems to raise awareness, if the corp lets this person interact alone with women on the job, then yes, they are partly responsible, especially if they move that person to a new location to hide it like the Church did

as for the police.... did they report it to the police when the women went to HR, if they did, that may protect them, can't claim they were trying to hide it or cover it up if they reported it to the police

 

Why didn't those 8 women go to police?

Are you claiming there are situations where the employer should be held responsible for not firing that person, even though that person should not have been put in prison or subjected to court-ordered restrictions by government?

See, the thing is, your type of position just seems totally inconsistent. You see that, don't you?

You are putting the blame on the employer, but what about the government??? The government could have just as easily done something in this situation but they didn't. So why do you the employer should be the one held responsible?

Do you think government should pay those women money? Isn't the government responsible, in your view?

 

Please explain how that's even relevant.
How is moving someone from one location to another worse than just keeping them in that same position?

I'm having trouble being able to see why that would be any worse.

 

No, those women are idiots. If they decided to tell their employer about the illegal thing done to them, but they did not decide to tell the police, then they should not be allowed to sue the employer. Why didn't they tell police?

It should not have been the employer's responsibility. It should be the responsibility of government and law enforcement.

It's unfair to be putting employers into the position of having to decide whether employees are guilty or not.

 

If there is some kind of cover-up, then yes. Also, employees represent the corporation, so typically people sue the corporation and hope to hit the jack-pot. Its just the way things are in the US. Law-suits are practically our national sport.

I remember McDonalds having to pay $1million for spilled coffee, which caused burns on a customer, and although the employee was at fault, McDonalds was legally responsible.

 

if you move someone that has been caught abusing little girls or boys to a new location and they abuse more..... very elivent

 

agree, there too, never go to your school or employer first, call 911

 

I don't see how there can be a cover up. Is the employer threatening to fire the woman if she reports it to police or something?

If the woman was harmed in an illegal way, there is nothing preventing her from taking that to government for government to deal with.
Why should this be the employer's job?

I very much disagree with what you stated; you're making an overgeneralization.
Employees represent the corporation when they were doing something that the corporation told them to do. For example, if they were working on a construction project and there was an accident, would be a classic example.

If, on the other hand, the employee decides to intentionally do something, and that thing was not condoned or incentivized by the company in any way, then the company should not be held responsible for that. For example, if one employee murders another in the workplace. Hopefully we can all agree that is the fault of the individual and not the employer.

An employee is not "representing" the corporation if he did something the corporation did not tell him to do. If he did it intentionally, and it was not just an accidental result of trying to do what the corporation wanted him to do.

 

Why? You still haven't explained why, FreshAir.

 

Everyone knows that was a grossly absurd and ridiculous lawsuit. The customer spilled the coffee on themselves, even though it had a lid on it, and complained it was "too hot". (What do you expect?)
If a worker was the one who spilled the coffee on them, or set up the coffee so that it was at a higher risk of spilling, and that was just an accidental part of the employee during their job, then yes, the company could be responsible. (Still, a million dollars is completely ridiculous. Should have been 50 times less than that)

It seems the society has just become used to these stupid lawsuits, and each lawsuit sets a precedent for more.

 

A business has been ordered to pay $7 billion to family of victim murdered by one of their employees. In fact, the employee was off-duty at the time.

Roy James Holden pleaded guilty to Thomas's murder and was sentenced to life in prison. Thomas' attorneys said that Holden had lied about his past jobs and Charter hadn't verified his employment. Had the company done so and discovered the lie, he would have been disqualified from being hired.



Pretty simple case of negligence right?

Catholic church hid it for decades, systematically.


Philbert, the second-highest administrator at the University of Michigan, had a lengthy history of sexually harassing female employees and had sexual relationships, including in university offices — while being promoted time and time again, an independent investigation released this summer found.

"Over the course of his employment by the University — while he was an assistant professor, an associate dean, Dean of SPH (School of Public Health), and Provost — Philbert sexually harassed multiple members of the university community, including both graduate students who worked in his research lab and university employees. Some allegations and other information about Philbert’s conduct reached university officials; others never came to their attention," the report by the law firm WilmerHale said.

"Martin Philbert is a classic harasser — he was prolific and abusive, and he had the power and connections to protect himself for years.''

..."There is a path even after this agreement for pursuing Philbert individually — this deal does not release him, and that is very unique and I will say admirable on the part of the University. It is paying for its part in this, and leaving him to shoulder what he did individually. Most employers don't do that."

Philbert sexually harassed women during his entire career at the university, the WilmerHale report found.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...bert-sexual-harassment-settlement/3764027001/

WOW I'D HATE TO WORK UNDER YOU IF YOU 'BELIEVE' ANY OF THIS IS WRONG!!

 

What total BS.

You right wing Klowns don't even know what happens then claim the high ground with nonsense

The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds. Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.

Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.


Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement.
https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts

 

No, employers should be held legally and morally responsible for their own actions (or inaction) if those actions contributed to the crimes of their employees (or indeed, anyone else). They're not being held financially responsible in these cases, they are being required to pay compensation and/or fines for failing in their legal responsibilities.

In general, they idea of assigning an overall "percentage of responsibility" for any crime or incident is flawed. Everyone is entirely responsible for their own actions, regardless of who else is involved. If ten people rob a bank, their not less responsible for the crime as three people robbing a bank would be. If the bank manager got rid of the security guards to save money beforehand, allowing the robbery to take place, that doesn't make the robbers any less responsible for their actions.

Organisations and individuals have all sorts of responsibilities, both direct legal/regulatory ones and general moral ones. If a failure to meet those responsibilities causes or contributes to a crime (or any other avoidable harm), they need to be held to those responsibilities. Just like any other legal failing, they are generally held to them by taking any gains they received as a consequence, fining them as a deterrent and/or compensating the victims.

 

If there is a dishonest employee who is cooking the books, or stealing from clients, and the management does nothing, then they are guilty.

What woman? I don't know what you are talking about.

Yes. That is what I am talking about.

Like I said, suing people is an American pastime and there is nothing new about it, so its not like we are "becoming" anything. We have always been this way.

 

I think it's obvious why it was wrong for the church to move preachers to new locations with a new set of victims that are unaware, after being caught abusing little boys and girls