Negligent hiring is a legal claim asserting that an employer is liable for harm caused by an employee because the employer failed to exercise reasonable care in the hiring process. This falls under the broader umbrella of risk management within business operations. The core principle is that employers have a duty of care to protect others from foreseeable harm that could be caused by their employees, especially when the employee’s unsuitability for the role should have been apparent through a reasonable investigation. 32When an employer fails in this duty, and a third party is harmed as a direct result of the employee's unfitness, a claim of negligent hiring may arise. This doctrine holds the employer responsible for their own negligence in selection, rather than for the employee's actions under the scope of employment.
31
History and Origin
The concept of negligent hiring emerged as an extension of common law principles, evolving to address situations where an employer's direct negligence in the selection of personnel led to harm. Historically, employer liability for employee actions was primarily governed by the doctrine of respondeat superior, which held employers accountable for torts committed by employees within the scope of their employment. However, negligent hiring allows for liability even when an employee's harmful act falls outside the scope of their job duties, focusing instead on the employer's direct fault in the hiring process itself.
30
Over time, particularly from the 1970s onwards, courts in various U.S. states began to more explicitly recognize and develop the tort of negligent hiring. This development was often driven by a need to provide recourse for victims of employee misconduct that could have been prevented through more thorough vetting by employers. A study analyzing negligent hiring decisions from 1974 to 2022 indicates the increasing recognition and application of this liability. 29The rise in workplace violence and concerns about safety also contributed to the emphasis on employers' responsibility to conduct adequate pre-employment screening to prevent foreseeable harm.
27, 28
Key Takeaways
- Negligent hiring holds an employer accountable for harm caused by an employee if the employer failed to conduct proper due diligence during the hiring process.
- The employer is considered negligent if they knew, or should have known, that the applicant was unfit for the position and posed a foreseeable risk to others.
- This legal theory typically applies when the employee's misconduct causes harm to a third party, such as a customer or another employee.
- Common scenarios involve employees with problematic histories (e.g., criminal records, poor driving records) hired into roles where such histories could lead to foreseeable harm.
- Preventive measures include comprehensive background checks, verifying credentials, and assessing job-related risks.
Formula and Calculation
Negligent hiring is a legal concept rooted in tort law, not a financial metric with a calculable formula. There is no mathematical equation to determine "negligent hiring." Instead, a court determines liability based on a set of legal elements.
To establish a claim of negligent hiring, a plaintiff generally must prove the following elements:
- Duty of Care: The employer owed a duty to the injured party.
- Breach of Duty: The employer breached this duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in hiring. This often involves inadequate screening or ignoring red flags about an applicant's unsuitability.
- Causation: The employer's negligent hiring was a direct cause of the injury.
- Damages: The injured party suffered actual harm or loss.
- Foreseeability: The harm caused by the employee was a reasonably foreseeability consequence of the employer's negligent hiring.
The "calculation," if one could call it that, comes into play during litigation, where damages are assessed to compensate the injured party for their losses, which can include medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other related costs.
26
Interpreting the Negligent Hiring
Interpreting negligent hiring involves assessing whether an employer's actions (or inactions) during the hiring process met the standard of reasonable care. It centers on the concept of foreseeability. If an employer hires an individual for a role where their known or discoverable history (e.g., a criminal record, a history of reckless behavior) creates a foreseeable risk of harm to others, and that harm subsequently occurs, the employer could be found negligent.
For instance, hiring a delivery driver with a documented history of multiple serious traffic violations without adequate review could be considered negligent hiring if that driver later causes an accident. The interpretation hinges on whether a prudent employer, exercising reasonable care, would have identified the risk and taken steps to mitigate it or refrained from hiring the individual for that specific role. 25This also applies to roles involving vulnerable populations, access to sensitive data, or safety-sensitive functions. 24The assessment considers the nature and gravity of any prior offense, the time elapsed since the offense, and the nature of the job held or sought.
22, 23
Hypothetical Example
Consider "SecureIT Solutions," a company that installs complex security systems in homes and businesses. SecureIT is looking to hire a new field technician who will have unsupervised access to clients' premises and sensitive information.
An applicant, Mark, applies for the position. His resume appears suitable, but a quick criminal background checks reveals a conviction from two years prior for felony theft and a history of credit card fraud. Despite these red flags, the human resources manager, under pressure to fill the position quickly, decides not to delve deeper into Mark's criminal history, reasoning that the technical skills are paramount. SecureIT hires Mark.
A few months later, Mark is dispatched to a client's home. During the installation, while the homeowner is out, Mark steals valuable electronics.
In this scenario, the client could potentially file a civil lawsuit against SecureIT Solutions for negligent hiring. A court would likely consider whether SecureIT exercised reasonable care. Given Mark's recent convictions for theft and fraud, and the nature of the job requiring access to private property and valuables, it was arguably foreseeable that an individual with such a history might commit similar acts. SecureIT's failure to adequately investigate or consider the implications of Mark's record during the hiring process could establish a case for negligent hiring.
Practical Applications
Negligent hiring claims appear in various real-world contexts, particularly where an employer's hiring practices directly contribute to harm caused by an employee. A primary application is in situations where employees interact with the public, handle sensitive assets, or operate dangerous equipment. For example, transportation companies hiring drivers, healthcare facilities hiring caregivers, or security firms hiring guards must exercise considerable care in their hiring practices. A common example involves transportation companies hiring individuals with poor driving records, which can lead to auto accidents.
21
Employers routinely use background checks, reference checks, and verification of credentials as protective measures against negligent hiring claims. 20Beyond the direct financial liability from lawsuits, businesses also face potential damage to their reputational risk and increased insurance premiums if found liable for negligent hiring. 19The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) emphasizes the importance of employers providing a safe workplace, which implicitly includes careful hiring to prevent foreseeable hazards to employees and the public.
17, 18
Limitations and Criticisms
While negligent hiring serves as a crucial legal safeguard, it also faces limitations and criticisms. One significant challenge lies in balancing an employer's duty to conduct thorough investigations with potential claims of discrimination, especially concerning applicants with criminal histories. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provides guidance stating that blanket exclusions of applicants based on criminal records may lead to disparate impact discrimination if not job-related and consistent with business necessity. 15, 16This puts employers in a complex position: failing to screen can lead to negligent hiring claims, while overly broad screening policies can lead to discrimination claims.
Another limitation involves the standard of foreseeability. Courts interpret what an employer "knew or should have known" differently across jurisdictions. 14For instance, a court might not hold an employer liable if the employee's actions were entirely unforeseeable or outside the realm of what a reasonable background check would reveal. 13Critics also argue that the perceived risk of negligent hiring lawsuits is often exaggerated, leading employers to be overly cautious and potentially excluding qualified individuals with past offenses who pose little actual risk. 11, 12Studies suggest that liability for negligent hiring is less common than often believed, particularly for roles that do not involve vulnerable populations, access to homes, or financial assets.
9, 10
Negligent Hiring vs. Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring and negligent retention are distinct but related concepts within employment law, both addressing employer liability for employee actions. The key difference lies in the timing of the employer's negligence.
-
Negligent Hiring: This occurs when an employer fails to exercise reasonable care during the initial hiring process. The negligence is in bringing an unsuitable or dangerous individual into the workforce in the first place, when their unsuitability was discoverable through due diligence. 8The employer "should have known" of the risk before making the hiring decision.
-
Negligent Retention: This arises when an employer becomes aware (or reasonably should have become aware) that an existing employee is unfit or dangerous, but fails to take appropriate action, such as reassigning, training, or terminating the employee. The negligence here is in keeping the employee in a position where they can cause harm after their unsuitability becomes known.
7
In essence, negligent hiring is about the initial mistake in hiring, while negligent retention is about the failure to act on information about an employee's unsuitability after they have been hired. Both concepts underscore an employer's ongoing responsibility for sound human resources practices and legal compliance.
FAQs
What types of businesses are most at risk for negligent hiring claims?
Businesses where employees have significant contact with the public, handle sensitive information or assets, or operate dangerous equipment are most at risk. This includes transportation companies, healthcare providers, security firms, schools, and organizations that send employees into clients' homes.
6
What kind of background information should employers investigate to avoid negligent hiring?
Employers should investigate an applicant's criminal history, employment references, professional licenses and certifications, and, for certain roles (like drivers), driving records. 5The extent of the investigation should be proportional to the risks associated with the job role.
Can an employer be liable for negligent hiring if an employee commits a crime outside of work hours?
Generally, a negligent hiring claim typically arises when an employee causes harm within the course and scope of their employment, or when the employer's negligent hiring enables the off-duty misconduct in a foreseeable way. Courts assess whether the harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the employer's hiring decision, even if the act itself occurred off-duty.
3, 4
What is the "foreseeability" standard in negligent hiring?
The foreseeability standard means that for an employer to be held liable, the harm caused by the employee must have been reasonably predictable based on information the employer knew or should have known about the employee's background before hiring them. It asks whether a reasonable employer would have anticipated the potential for such harm.
2
How can employers protect themselves from negligent hiring lawsuits?
Employers can protect themselves by establishing clear hiring policies, conducting thorough and consistent background checks for all relevant positions, verifying references and credentials, documenting the hiring process, and ensuring their screening practices comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. 1Providing proper workplace safety training and fostering a culture of adherence to procedures also helps mitigate risks.