Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners

Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County:

Mariah C. Davis filed a lawsuit against Dona Ana County for injuries he suffered while a patient at Mesilla Valley Hospital. In the lawsuit, Davis accused Joe Herrera, an employee at the hospital, of sexually assaulting her. Furthermore, she alleged that the hospital hired Herrera on incompetent, favorable suggestions from Dana Ana County Detention Center where he was also investigated for allegation of sexually harassing female inmates. According to the report by the Detention Center's director, Herrera was accused of making statements with sexual overtones, expressing his desire for sex, and obtaining sexual favors from inmates. Some of the references made in the report include pornographic video and condoms found in his office as well as being in possession of underwear belonging to a juvenile. As a matter of first impression, the New Mexico Court of Appeals which determined the case ruled that an employer owes potential employers and predictable third parties a duty of care when choosing to give an employment suggestion (Ziegler, 2000, p.307).

What was the legal Issue in this case?

The legal in this case is negligent referral, which occurred because of avoidable acts of ill-will. Negligent referral is a situation that occurs when a former employer provides a positive recommendation that contributes to half-truths in relation to the character of a former employee. In situations where negligent referral occurs, liability may be enforced if it results in predictable and considerable harm or risk to a third party. Negligent referral occurred in the case of Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Dona Ana County following positive recommendations of Joseph Herrera. These recommendations were provided by Frank Steele, Herrera's supervisor at the Detention Center who had investigated Herrera's sexual harassment charges based on allegation of improper sexual behaviors with female inmates.

Herrera was previously employed at the Dona Ana County Detention Center as a detention sergeant and classification officer. During his time at the Detention Center, he was accused of inappropriate sexual behaviors with female inmates such as making statements with sexual connotations, expressing desire for sex, and obtaining sexual favors from the female inmates. The director of the detention center and his assistant investigated the allegations and recommended his suspension without pay, reassignment, and demotion though the allegations could not be confirmed. Negligent referral occurred after Herrera resigned and requested and received a recommendation letter from Steele. The director provided a positive letter of recommendation to Herrera for prospective employment. The letter omitted any references to the accusations of Herrera's sexual harassment.

Why does the court conclude that Dona Ana County could be held liable for negligent referral (misrepresentation)?

The main reason for the court ruling that Dona Ana County could be held liable for misrepresentation or negligent referral is the positive references provided by Frank Steele. While Steele stated that not all accusations of improper sexual behavior could be confirmed against Herrera, he noted that his performance and general conduct while on duty had not only been questionable but also suspect. However, he proceeded to provide a positive endorsement of Herrera by omitting any reference to the allegations in less than a week after seeking disciplinary action against Herrera.

Based on provisions of Negligent Misrepresentation involving Risk of Physical Harm, an individual is liable for giving false information to another who reasonably relies on the provided information that eventually contributes physical harm. Moreover, if an employer chooses to provide any information beyond basic identity information, he/she must ensure that the information is precise, accurate, and complete (Edwards & Culley, 2008). Therefore, if Dona Ana County chose to provide a recommendation, it had a duty to demonstrate reasonable care when providing the recommendation letter. Since the County did not exercise reasonable care when providing the recommendation, it was liable for misrepresentation or negligent referral. Generally, a former employer has a common law duty of reasonable care to future employers and third parties given the recommendation letter. In situations where employers fail to exercise reasonable care when providing employment references, they are liable for negligent referral or misrepresentation (Maguire, n.d.).

Should it have mattered that the former employer's investigation was not able to confirm all of the allegations against Herrera? Explain your answer.

The issue of the investigations not being able to confirm all of the allegations against Herrera does not really matter. This is primarily because the court's decision and conclusion was based on legal essentials that place liability on an individual who provide false information to another deliberately or negligently and eventually causes harm when actions are undertaken based on the provided information. According to the legal fundamentals, the main issue under evaluation is the presence of false information and subsequent physical harm rather than the confirmation of previous allegations. Moreover, the false information does not have to be explicit dismissal of a specific fact in order to be admissible in a court of law. As noted by the court, the employer could have avoided the liability by choosing not to provide a recommendation letter to Herrera.

Secondly, the confirmation of all allegations was not a major issue in this case because Herrera was found to be an individual of questionable character. While all the allegations could not be ascertained, the investigations concluded that he was an individual of questionable character. This conclusion was enough to prove that he had integrity issues while performing his duties and could be considered as a person of bad character.

What practical implications does this decision hold? Are you convinced by the court's claim that this ruling should not make employers more reluctant to provide references?

In the past few years, several states have undertaken several measures to protect employers through enacting laws that hold them immune from civil liability for offering good faith employment references (Maguire, n.d.). The legislations have commonly been referred to as shield law statute that provides protection for employment references. However, some employers have been held liable for providing false information, negligent referral, and misrepresentation for failure to disclose relevant information about and employee's violent conduct, especially when it causes harm to another third party or employer.

The practical implication of this decision is that it will make employers feel they have a duty to include negative information if the employee's re-employment could cause physical harm to others. These employers would do so not in bad faith but in attempts to provide prospective employers and other third parties with accurate and complete information. The court's decision should not make employers be more reluctant to provide references since they are still safer to provide only the very basic information about former employees. Furthermore, employers still have the opportunity to make the decision of providing a recommendation in conscious, sensitive, and careful ways that protect the safety of employees.