Note
What do you think about the whole Anne wanting the christening robe from Catherine that she brought from Spain?
The Lady, not being satisfied with what she has received already, has solicited the King to ask the Queen for a very rich triumphal cloth which she brought from Spain to wrap up her children with at baptism (en temps de la tesme (?) qu. baptesme?), which she would be glad to make use of very soon. The Queen has replied that it has not pleased God she should be so ill advised as to grant any favor in a case so horrible and abominable.
Chapuys to Charles V. (July 1533)
So, I mean...there's no record of this response, or any letters, that corroborate this incident? And there should ostensibly be a few, right? At the very least the letter requesting it and the letter of refusal.
All that's left, really, is to argue for the likelihood based on what we know.
Against: Anne doesn't seem to have wanted reminders of Catherine around? She didn't like that Henry's shirts were being made for her by that reason, it's theorized she "could not abide the sight" of monkeys because they were Catherine's favorite pets, etc.
Moreoever, the argument Borman has made that this was a symbol of legitimate royal blood, I mean...sure, it definitely was, but it was passed down through the Trasmataras? It seems strange that Anne would request it as seeing her future child as an extension of that dynasty, actually, it makes like...no sense. Had the christening robe been one used by Henry and his siblings, perhaps his mother and theirs, and for some reason Catherine had this in her possession, then it would make sense.
And doubly, the argument Henry was making at this time was that his children by Catherine could not have even be bona fides, because the marriage contravened divine law. So, the christening robe, as far as their perspective would have went, would actually be associated with illegitimacy (since it was used for the children of Henry and Catherine), thus asking for it would be contradictory to the beliefs they espoused, as would the imagery of that symbol.
Since it doesn't make any sense even as far as symbolism goes, if Anne requested it, the gesture could only have come from a place of cruelty and pettiness. There's reports of Anne being petty and cruel, so that does nothing to disprove anything, really. In this vein, Elizabeth Norton states that Anne “spotted an opportunity to continue her persecution of Catherine”.
So, maybe the argument can be made that the request was not even so much a symbol of power and legitimacy, as it was that the robe was said to be very beautiful and Anne thus wanted to use it? With perhaps the added benefit that some of her detractors might recognize it and seethe, Ainsi sera, groigne qui groigne
For: Anne did, if memory serves, take several items from the inventory of Catherine's goods and used them in her household, as did Henry. I have the quote of these items from a biography saved somewhere, I would have to find it, I can't remember if they were sort of more generic, utilitarian objects (gilt pitchers, that sort of thing) or if there were any that displayed Catherine's actual symbols. Either way, this demonstrates that Anne was not that adverse to reminders of Catherine surrounding her, so lends credence to the claim made by Chapuys here.
#the argument generally goes well if she took her JEWELS then#but the jewels were the official jewels of the queens of england#so...of course they were given to anne?#and catherine essentially admitted those at least were not her property but rather the crown's/...so . henry's#by conceding?#so the incident does; if it happened; illustrate the difference between state and personal property. a christening robe passed down to her#by her family...obviously would have been#anon#'henry cringed at her insensitivity and refused to press the matter' lol...borman.#the latter does not prove the former#also yes. henry. famously known for his innate sensitivity to the feelings of others.#fare thee well#god now im getting mixed up with the inventory...i THINK the first wave was just wolsey's?#and then the second was in katherine's lifetime ? and then after her death .#it's all very murky . maybe what i'm remembering if she took some items from wolsey's inventory that had catherine's symbols on them?#or both#sigh. i really need to organize all my research better
17 notes
·
View notes
Text
abolition is never “off the table”-- and we shouldn’t let anyone try to convince us otherwise.
allowing goals like abolition to get watered down and constantly misrepresented by the propagandized public, private corporations and career politicians leads to all these problems we keep hearing about on the news getting worse.
for example, we learn about instances of police violence, indigenous women going missing, the horrific prison industry, domestic & reproductive violence against women and non-men, systemic anti-blackness, families separated at hellish border facilities, seemingly endless wars and being on the brink of environmental collapse on a daily basis.
it all seems never-ending and overwhelming that no matter what good we do in our personal lives, it isn’t ever enough, because these problems will continue to manifest. somehow, it is always the same problems coming back to haunt us.
those are the consequences when attention and energy for micro problems are given priority, instead of investigating and healing the relationships people have to power, space and resources on the macro scale at the same time.
micro-scale problems are somewhat easy to package as isolated incidents for people who we believe are responsible for handling them, and they often can handle them well enough that the majority of people affected by the issue may feel placated enough to accept the authority as legitimate
these politicians and other micromanagers “solving” the problem is often used as evidence that the authorities are competent at their jobs and that issues can be solved by the system (when it wants to solve them), thus providing evidence of their legitimacy, even when it’s these same individuals and groups that are the direct causes of the problems to begin with.
beware that not being impressed or made passive by the reform logic of authorities and capitalism can be misrepresented as: “oh, you xyz group are never satisfied, you always want to save the world, but this is the real world, you’re too idealistic and your standards are too high!”
this is not an accurate portrayal, and it often isn’t meant to be. it’s meant to distract us, divide us and obscure what the problem is.
very simply, if the direct cause of a problem is not addressed, the problem is not going to be solved.
everything else is a surface-level approach that will allow the root of the problem to continue to endlessly self-reproduce the same harmful structure and power dynamics, but in different forms.
the best way to illustrate this is to picture the structure we live under (capitalism) as a living structure, like a tree. all living structures move, transform, grow and adapt given any and all external and internal forces that affect it, no matter what scale we observe it at -- either microscopically or as part of a larger surrounding ecosystem.
you’ll hear people say that radicalism is “grasping at the root” of a problem -- which is precisely what we must do if we have any hope at addressing any problem(s) that any structure provides us with.
the goal isn’t to eliminate all possibilities of conflict, or to be so bold as to think we can perfectly meet the needs of every single person affected negatively by something. not even capitalism which boasts as being this hyper-efficient, almighty, all-powerful system can do that, even on its best day.
the people who are intimately aware of the intricacies of this system are always found at the center, at the “grassroots” level of where the structure forms its base. without a base, without grounding, without roots, the rest of the structure cannot form, spread out or replenish itself when damaged or “reformed”. so that is where we must start; with the people, communities and land that is primarily affected.
rather than manage these groups by trying to decide what their needs are for them, or what actions must be done to meet their needs, they should be empowered to decide for themselves how to best maneuver and achieve those needs, while providing necessary aid when we can, and expanding the options for possible solutions when we can.
if something affects us negatively, there is a chance it affects others, too, and it follows that it’s in our mutual interest to work together to achieve a future where both our needs are met and that we can live healthy and fulfilling lives, together.
according to the janky ass reform logic of capitalism, this is an unnecessary and dangerous approach, because it does away the authority of the people who just say that they represent us and say that they’ll take responsibility for a problem -- the same people whose jobs hinge on appearing as if they care, with platforms, talking points, photo-ops and co-signs from other politicians and high ranking members of the public to offer “proof”.
they often use the logic that says that we must preserve this system, because it is sacred and perfect, that it would interrupt business, so we can’t empower people to make these decisions, even if it means that some people have to suffer and die because the system is inefficient and does not represent them, or demands that they experience social death.
we should not be impressed by these people. in fact, if they are standing in the way between these grassroots efforts, either by preventing these programs from assembling or actively attacking them politically, then they are enemies. when you become an enemy of the people you claim to represent, you are a tyrant and an opp.
and we do smoke opps.
at every grassroots level, there are groups of people who are very sensitive to the changes that happen at all the other levels of the living structure that oppresses them. from this perspective, they can experience for themselves the effects of the things that happen above the surface, and they experience the dissonance personally when another politician promises to change something, only to eventually fall short or make the problem even worse.
they get news that claims that a problem is (going to be, maybe, eventually) fixed, are present as media moves on to the next sensational story only to experience the problems same thing again, and again.
just because the cameras are turned away, because the tweets stopped getting traction, doesn’t mean that the people and communities have disappeared. and yet, no matter what, this is a cycle that continues.
the only answer, the only consistent thing that has been proven to make a difference, is there being a complete break with the logic of this system. as long as we follow the capitalist logic, the same structure will replicate. as mentioned, the roots will create new stems, leaves, seeds and thorns if left undisturbed. we’ll continue to see new iterations of the same problems as long as the logic, the roots, are left intact.
there’s no hope of creating new structures in the the place of one that’s taking up room at the same space, so the old system must be uprooted.
its this uprooting that some call a “revolution”.
this word might seem scary to a lot of folks for a lot of different reasons. it has way less to do with the chaos and bloodshed that's associated with it in our imaginations.
it has more to do with deeply investigating the roots of a problem and actually addressing them by changing the conditions -- something that capitalism refuses to do unless there is a profit motive, or only if the problem interferes with the flow of capital to private interests. the only way this chaos and violence would occur is if (and some would insist when,) these forces mobilize to preserve the same harmful system we’re attempting to uproot in the interest of private accumulation of profit.
should we just allow these corporations and wealthy individuals stop us from changing the things that affect the quality of our lives? the wealthy capitalists would say “why yes, of course you should!” but obviously they would say that -- and we have been given no reason to believe them.
we should each of us be prepared to deal with this violence in some way. to insist otherwise is naive and not realistic, and actually harmful to the communities that encounter this violence. this may look like armed patrols and free firearms & training for the most vulnerable communities, or creating an alternative directory that people may access instead of calling the police. these matters are up to the communities themselves to envision and implement.
we aren’t suggesting that we seek out violence where it’s reasonable to avoid it, or escalate problems beyond our management of them. this isn’t meant to encourage people to fulfill revenge fantasies for the hell of it, but to be prepared in case such conflicts occur.
the aforementioned unorganized violent activities are, at best, a strategy to cope with and purge the unending stress of life under capitalism or distract the state and similar private forces in combat while other solutions are being explored. we shouldn’t fall for the strategy of turning rioters, saboteurs, arsonists, vandals and looters into enemies of the people, when they are the people...and we shouldn’t dismiss these strategies as being harmful by definition when it is often only insured property that is the target of their actions, not individuals.
we shouldn’t disparage rioters for causing damage to this system, when capitalism has been damaging the world and our communities for as long as it has existed on this planet. both violent and non-violent methods of “grasping at the root” are legitimate, can coexist and inform each other, and are necessary to combat the terror capitalism’s logic has inflicted on us all.
remember that revolutions are only as peaceful as they are allowed to be.
the process of uprooting, of revolutionizing, may indeed be violent in nature when resistance is offered, but that shouldn’t stop us from continuing the process if it is necessary. just because a dangerous system is difficult to uproot doesn’t mean that it’s more reasonable or desirable to leave it alone to establish its roots and adapt.
we must acknowledge that multiple attempts may be necessary before any transformation takes place, possibly over the course of several years, perhaps lifetimes. it might require lots of planning. however, in the interest of conserving time and energy, the most simple and direct methods of applying pressure and healing should be prioritized. we do not want to resemble, in practice or theory, the politicians we hope to depose -- by making promises we don't intend to keep, making plans that never pan out, putting off immediate solutions until we personally benefit at the expense of others.
for example, this means that rather than coming up with overly-complicated, difficult-to-achieve long-term plans of gradually moving a low-income family out of a house infested with mold, they’d be moved immediately into safe housing if such housing is ample and available. this means that, rather than waiting on the state to decide how much food a hungry person needs or should have access to, we supply them with the food if it is abundant and we have it to spare.
if the needs people and communities have are immediate, the solution should also be immediate, whenever possible. the means are the ends.
this is because people need aid now, not in the future, not when the moment is perfect and some sort of irrelevant criteria is met, not when it’s more profitable to do so, but in the present. representatives and authorities have gotten really proficient at promising to solve issues in some far-off future they’re never be around to guarantee, abstracting issues and people so that they’re seen as insignificant to greater issues. how often have you heard: “we would like to do something about xyz, we just don’t have the time (money)”?
when these so-called “representatives” package all of these lies, and the time comes to prove their worth and legitimacy, there is often no reconciliation process that any of them must go through so that they’re held accountable for straight up lying and abusing the responsibility they had to the people. this is so often why our issues aren’t solved -- we started by trusting those that aren’t even affected by the problems we face to have our best interests in mind.
that is why we say enough electoralism -- enough elections -- enough career politicians -- enough bipartisanship -- enough government -- enough hollow campaign promises -- enough “lesser of two evils” -- enough “vote blue no matter who -- enough pitting poor communities against each other -- enough celebrity & corporate “activism” -- enough self-aggrandizing authorities -- enough micromanagers -- enough permanent elected positions
yes to community control -- yes to autonomous communities -- yes to free associations -- yes to reconciliatory organizations -- yes to federations of workers and professionals -- yes to voluntary work -- yes to open borders and travel -- yes to direct democracy and direct engagement with relevant issues -- yes to immediately recallable, voluntarily chosen delegates -- yes to grassroots organizing -- yes to self-defense and community-informed reactions to crime -- yes to direct action, mutual aid and solidarity for mutual survival -- yes to returning land and resources to indigenous and black communities -- yes to yielding space and resources to historically harmed communities on the margins (LGBT+, disabled, refugees & migrants, prisoners, non-human animals) -- yes to liberation for all!!!
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
youtube
The Battle with the Flesh: Pleasing God with R.C. Sproul [Nov.07/19]
In Paul’s letter to the church at Rome, Romans 13:12 & he makes this comment:
Romans 13:12-14 The night is far spent, & the day is at hand, let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, & let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting & drunkenness, not in chambering & wantonness, not in strife & envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
Now I’m sure that many of you are aware of a very unusual historical incident that is associated with this passage.
How many of you have an idea of what I’m talking about?
Back centuries ago, there was a young man who was very brilliant & very wild, whose mother was a Christian. His mother prayed for him daily, hoping that this young man would see the errors of his ways, & so on.
On one occasion, after allegedly having been out all night, carousing & now was in a stupor, he was making his way along the side of a garden.
And there were some children, playing in the garden. They were playing a child’s game, where a refrain was used in the game, that the kids called out one to another; & the refrain was this: Pick up & read.
This man, who was walking by, stopped in his tracks & had this overwhelming sense of the intrusion into his life of divine providence.
For there in the garden he saw a copy of the NT.
And he had just heard this children shouting, “Pick-up & read!” So he walked over & allowed the Scriptures to fall open wherever it did.
And when it did, his eyes fell upon these words: “Not in rioting & drunkenness ..make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.” [Romans 13:13-14]
When he read those words, it was as if each word of that text were an arrow that pierced his soul.
And his conscience was so agitated by it, that on the spot, he was converted to Christianity. His name as I’m sure you recognize by now, was Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis [November 13, 354 AD - August 28, 430 AD]
Later the bishop of Hippo, & considered by virtually every historian to be the greatest theologian in the first 1000 years of the Christian church.
Augustin was converted by a passage that spoke directly to the conflict in life, between the flesh & the spirit. _____________________________________________________
I remember just a few years ago, Rod Serling (who was the creator of the Twilight Zone) entered into a business relationship with Bennett Cerf & a group of other men, who were trying to find ways to discover new talent in the literary world. They set up different contests to get young writers to become involved in this particular enterprise. As part of this venture, of these various men, they each took one of the English classics in literature, & wrote a critical review of it.
Bennett Cerf perhaps would write about Shakespeare, & somebody else on Milton, & so on.
Well in any case, Rod Serling was assigned to write a critical review of Saint Augustin’s famous work: The Confessions.
>> How many of you incidentally have read the Confessions of St. Augustin?
Okay that’s a very small number of you, & if the number is the same on television, let me admonish you right now & say this: my mother used to say it, in a situation like that, & she would take a finger from this hand (both forefingers) & a finger from this hand, & she would put that together like this (shame shame). And she would say: Shame on you.
Now listen if you’ve been a Christian for 1yr, & you haven’t read the Confessions of St. Augustin, shame on you, that is a classic! That we need to be exposed to.
Now here Rod Serling read it & in his review, he said in scathing remarks of criticism, that in his judgment this book, was one of the most overrated books in the history of Western literature. He said, “it simply does not deserve the status & the fame, that it has enjoyed over the centuries.”
And in this criticism, the point that made him so severe was he was so convinced the book was written by somebody who had a neurotic preoccupation with guilt.
And he called attention to one passage in the Confessions, that would illustrate his judgment that Augustin had this adolescent neurotic preoccupation with guilt.
It was the story, where Augustin recalled as an old man, the things that he had done in his life, about which he was most ashamed. And he recalled an incident that took place, when he was a teenager where he became involved with some other young guys in an adolescent prank, where these fellas went into somebody’s private orchard & denuded a pear tree. They helped themselves to the pears that belonged to somebody else, & then left. And Augustin now, 50 yrs later, is mourning over this childhood prank. And Rod Serling says, “Give me a break, Augustin, I mean what’s the matter with you. I mean people are out here guilty of adultery/murder/grand larceny, & these serious things, & here’s this guy all exercised over stealing a few pears when he was a kid!” But Augustin explained what it was that made him feel so remorseful. It wasn’t the bare act of stealing this fruit. But he said it this way, “As I considered my life, & I consider the things that I have done that were evil. I could see that there were certain sins I fell into, that though they were not excusable, they were certainly understandable. Yes Augustin confessed to all kinds of sexual sins, as a young man fathering illegitimate children & so on. And he had remorse for that, but he said, “THAT I CAN understand.” There’s a strong biological drive, to become involved sexually, & that temptation can befall a person when they are at a weak moment (& anyone can succumb to it). “That I can understand! Doesn’t excuse it, but I can understand it. I can understand a man who is starving, stealing a loaf of bread. I don’t think a man who is starving has a RIGHT to steal a loaf of bread,” Augustin said, “but I can understand the force of the temptation to do it.” He said, “but I stole pears when I didn’t like pears.”
That is there was nothing that would stimulate my passions to steal those pears, except one thing; & that was the sheer joy in doing something that I knew was wrong.
What Augustin was lamenting, was the exercise of his fallen nature of his flesh, for the sheer joy doing it.
It’s been said that one of the most selfish of all crimes ever committed is vandalism. Because vandalism gives no benefit to the person who performs the deed, other than the sheer pleasure of harming someone else or someone else’s property. Usually in the case of people they don’t even know. Just last week Bob had the back window of his car shot out. When the police came they said, “What? How many in the neighbourhood? Something like 50 cases where kids just went joy riding & were just emptying their guns into people’s cars. People they didn’t know, people that had not done anything to them. There was no relationship or animosity, but for the sheer fun of doing something evil. The kids did several thousand dollars worth of damage to other people’s property.
But ladies & gentlemen, that’s not something that is done simply by wild unbridled evil people.
Just last night I was reading once again, the history of the Holocaust in World War II. And I was particularly reading what happened in Poland, just prior to the establishment of the Warsaw Ghetto. And the creation of the camp at Treblinka, where the beginning stages of the final solution of genocide was being worked out. And I read about women who were pregnant into their 9th month, who were forced stand up in cattle carts & give birth to their children without even having the benefit of lying down. And where the mother & the child both perished. And I read these atrocities over & over again; & I kept saying, “How is it possible?! That one human being could do these things to another human being?” And as astonishing as that day is, I ask in the case of the Holocaust it wasn’t one human being doing it to other human beings. IT WAS 8 MILLION human beings suffering at the hands of a network of people, who were involved in this, daily, systematically. At Auschwitz, 8K people every day were cremated & murdered! Do you realize how many people it takes to murder 8K people everyday?
So this wasn’t an isolated Charles Manson.
This was something that revealed the shadow side of the human heart.
What Joseph Conrad called, “the heart of darkness.” _____________________________________________________
Paul speaks of a state of humanity that he calls the flesh; & we’ve already noticed that Luther said that the great triade of enemies for the Christian growth contained the world, the flesh, & the devil.
Now when we’re talking about the flesh, I want us to understand without getting into the technicalities of it, that when the Bible talks about the struggles that we go through with the flesh it is not simply about the body.
The struggle between the flesh & the spirit cannot be equated with a struggle between the body & the soul, or the body & the mind, but rather what the NT is talking about is the struggle between the power of sin (in our natural fallen humanity) against the influence of God’s Holy Spirit.
So the whole struggle in the process of sanctification involves what Paul calls WARFARE!
There’s a war going on. And it’s a war between the flesh of mankind & the Spirit of God. Now I get so irritated when I hear preachers stand up & say, “here come to Jesus & all your problems will be over.” Because that’s just simply a lie.
My life didn’t get complicated until I became a Christian.
Before I was a Christian, though I was not happy I had a relative degree of peace. I knew that I was doing things that I ought not to be doing. I had not totally annihilated my conscience, but I was on the way to it.
By repeating certain actions, you can so sheer the conscience & put callouses upon the soul, that where you once felt a little twinge of guilt, now you can do these things through repetition that don’t bother you anymore.
You experience what the Bible calls hard heartedness. But when I came to Christ, I found a new conscience.
And so now, things that I didn’t worry about before, became matters of ethical concern; & life was complicated. It wouldn’t it have been nice if I could say: what I did when I was converted was I traded in the flesh, bought into the Spirit & lived happily ever after.”
That’s the struggle of sanctification. Though the power of the flesh is broken, & the power of the flesh is now subordinate to the Spirit in very real measure in regeneration. The flesh is not totally annihilated at conversion.
The war goes on!
Now listen to what the Apostle says in Romans 8:4-6, “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life & peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”
What is the topic of this series of lectures? PLEASING GOD
Here the Apostle says those who are in the flesh CANNOT please God. That God is not pleased, He’s never pleased by a lifestyle that is characterized by the flesh.
Now when he says that, it means that what God hates is physical things.
So often that’s the way this verse has been interpreted; & other verses like it, so the Christian thinks that to be spiritual means to deny the body. And that anything that has anything to do with physicality must necessarily be wrong. That’s why we’ve seen incidences arise in church history, where Christians got involved in all kinds of rigorous forms of asceticism [lifestyle characterized by abstinence from sensual pleasures]; forms of self-denial, & self-flagellation [flogging]. Where you go hide in a cell, like a hermit, & you beat yourself, & you deny yourself food & you get skinny as a rail. And you take all kinds of vows for celibacy because sex is wrong (not only outside of marriage, but inside marriage). Food is wrong. Anything that brings physical pleasure is considered wrong.
Ladies & gentlemen, that was invented by Manichæism, not by Christianity. _____________________________________________________
The first affirmation of the God who makes the physical world is when He look at it & says that’s good.
Plato came to the conclusion that anything physical is so far removed from pure spirit, that by its very physicality it is imperfect.
So the ideal from the Greek for redemption, would be to be released from the body. The body is the prison house of the soul.
Not so in Judaism Christianity, we don’t believe in resurrection from the body, but resurrection of the body.
So when the Bible talks about the warfare between flesh & Spirit, it’s not saying that matter is evil, spirit good.
If you look in Galatians, Paul sets forth the works of the flesh. What does he say? Works of the flesh includes such things: drunkenness, adultery, fornication (those would indicate what? Physical sin).
Drunkenness results when we have a physical appetite/desire for alcohol & we over indulge ourselves in those things, & so we get blotto.
We can obviously see the connection between the body & the action there. Adultery is the physical sin, it’s succumbing to biological instincts & passions, where God has said No!
But if you look at that list, he goes on & speaks about: LYING, ENVY, HATRED. Now obviously you can’t lie & envy & hate outside of your bodies. But they are not physical actions are they.
>> They have to do with attitudes & dispositions of the heart.
If you look at this: ENVY. I mentioned earlier that the sin of vandalism.
Why do you suppose vandalism takes place? Vandalism is simply the outward action of inward ENVY.
The basic attitude of a vandal is this: If I can’t enjoy what you possess, I’m going to make sure you can’t enjoy it either. S/he doesn’t simply steal it, for themselves, but rather s/he destroys it!
So that no one can enjoy it. There’s a certain sense of it being a degree worse than theft. But it comes out of a spirit of envy towards other people’s possession.
Do you have any idea how destructive to human relationships envy is? How many ways people are violated that are motivated by envy? How man
How many ways people are violated that are motivated by envy?
How many times you’ve been slandered, you’ve been attacked?
>> Unjustly because of someone’s envy...
Do you ever wonder why in God’s ordering of priorities, God puts envy in the top 10 of the laws thou shall not covet! _____________________________________________________
The NT teaches us that if somebody else receives a benefit, something good happens to them: We’re supposed to rejoice in their good fortune!
Rather than to rejoice in their fall. There is an expression, a cynical expression in golf. I don’t like it.
“Every golf shot makes somebody happy.” LOL, if a guy hits it in the water, it doesn’t make him happy, but it certainly makes his opponent happy.
But what I love to see in a golf tournament, is where everybody is rooting for everybody else to play their very best. And to have somebody win it, rather than somebody else lose it. THERE’S A DIFFERENCE!
>> You’re not wishing bad fortune on another person. That’s what we do when we succumb to ENVY.
So what I’m trying to get at is this: the FLESH refers to the old fallen nature.
Now in the time remaining, let me ask this question: Bible says that to be carnally minded is death, spiritually minded is life/peace.
But it says you are not in the flesh, you’re in the SPIRIT!
But here’s the problem: You may be in the SPIRIT, but you’re still alive & you still envy & yes even still commit adultery, get drunk.
In other words we continue to perform the works of the FLESH, even though we’re in the SPIRIT. Now I know there are some who say, “you’re either in the FLESH, or in the SPIRIT.” That you can’t be a carnal Christian.
Now when Bill Bright says that, I think he speaks to it in a very significant pastoral way. What he’s saying to people: Look you have these influences, this warfare going on, who is going to be on the THRONE?
Who is going to be the VICTOR? Are you going to live in acquiescence to the Holy Spirit? or are you going to indulge the flesh for the rest of your life?
He’s talking about a SPIRIT filled life; that sees the emphasis is on the level of the SPIRIT (rather than on the flesh).
But some people have devised from that, from others, the theories there are different kinds of Christians, ie:
Carnal Christian who doesn’t have the Spirit of God
Spiritual Christian who’s no longer carnal
Ladies & gentlemen, anyone who does not have the SPIRIT of CHRIST is not a carnal Christian, s/he is carnal non-Christian.
So in that sense carnal Christian is a contradiction, in terms.
If a person is only flesh, what the NT calls flesh (not the Holy Spirit dwelling in them), then s/he is outside the Kingdom of God.
>> They can’t possibly please GOD.
And yet if a person has the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, that person may do carnal things & still struggle with the flesh, but s/he is a spiritual person.
It becomes a matter of degree of how much we submit to the Holy Spirit.
A person who pleases GOD, is a person who seeks the fruit of the Spirit in their life.
#world flesh devil#God hates physical things#ENVY#rejoice in their good fortune#not wishing bad fortune
0 notes
Text
Is a Business Liable for an Employee’s Actions?
Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.
youtube
Employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee’s labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.
When someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.
Job-Related Accidents
Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. We’ve seen this as business lawyers. The key phrase is “in the course of employment”. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible.
This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms “detour” or “frolic” to signify the difference.
youtube
A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).
youtube
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident.
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he’ll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
A special type of work-related accident occurs when one employee injures another employee while on the job. Workers’ compensation protects you from being sued by your employee provided that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her job when the accident occurred. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the employee would submit a claim to receive payment for lost wages, medical bills, etc.
Negligent Hiring – Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.
An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
youtube
A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Workplace Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment of employees by other employees has become an increasingly problematic source of business liability for employers. Workplace harassment violates federal law if it involves discriminatory treatment based on: race, color, sex (with or without sexual conduct), religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or the employee’s opposition job discrimination or participation in an investigation or complaint proceeding under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC.
Workplace harassment does not include simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a “tangible employment action,” such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion.
Even if the harassment did not lead to a “tangible employment action,” the employer can still be held liable unless it proves that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and the employee suffering the harassment unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.
To avoid workplace harassment liability, employers should establish, distribute and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment, and set out a procedure for making complaints. Preferably, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses owners may avoid liability through less formal means.
If a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought straight to any supervisor or the business owner.
Make sure you conduct an investigation. It is not enough to simply create a harassment policy. A business must also conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into any complaint that arises, and undertake swift and appropriate corrective action to fulfill its responsibility to “effectively prevent and correct harassment.” We have represented several companies with regards to different liability issues.
Free Consultation with a Business Lawyer
When you have an employment or business law issue you need help with, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Why You Need a Will
Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah
Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer
Divorce and Property Division
Patents
Things You Need to Know About Prenups
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/
0 notes
Text
Is a Business Liable for an Employee’s Actions?
Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.
youtube
Employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee’s labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.
When someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.
Job-Related Accidents
Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. We’ve seen this as business lawyers. The key phrase is “in the course of employment”. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible.
This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms “detour” or “frolic” to signify the difference.
youtube
A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).
youtube
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident.
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he’ll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
A special type of work-related accident occurs when one employee injures another employee while on the job. Workers’ compensation protects you from being sued by your employee provided that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her job when the accident occurred. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the employee would submit a claim to receive payment for lost wages, medical bills, etc.
Negligent Hiring – Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.
An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
youtube
A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Workplace Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment of employees by other employees has become an increasingly problematic source of business liability for employers. Workplace harassment violates federal law if it involves discriminatory treatment based on: race, color, sex (with or without sexual conduct), religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or the employee’s opposition job discrimination or participation in an investigation or complaint proceeding under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC.
Workplace harassment does not include simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a “tangible employment action,” such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion.
Even if the harassment did not lead to a “tangible employment action,” the employer can still be held liable unless it proves that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and the employee suffering the harassment unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.
To avoid workplace harassment liability, employers should establish, distribute and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment, and set out a procedure for making complaints. Preferably, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses owners may avoid liability through less formal means.
If a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought straight to any supervisor or the business owner.
Make sure you conduct an investigation. It is not enough to simply create a harassment policy. A business must also conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into any complaint that arises, and undertake swift and appropriate corrective action to fulfill its responsibility to “effectively prevent and correct harassment.” We have represented several companies with regards to different liability issues.
Free Consultation with a Business Lawyer
When you have an employment or business law issue you need help with, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Why You Need a Will
Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah
Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer
Divorce and Property Division
Patents
Things You Need to Know About Prenups
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/
0 notes
Text
Is a Business Liable for an Employee’s Actions?
Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.
youtube
Employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee’s labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.
When someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.
Job-Related Accidents
Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. We’ve seen this as business lawyers. The key phrase is “in the course of employment”. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible.
This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms “detour” or “frolic” to signify the difference.
youtube
A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).
youtube
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident.
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he’ll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
A special type of work-related accident occurs when one employee injures another employee while on the job. Workers’ compensation protects you from being sued by your employee provided that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her job when the accident occurred. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the employee would submit a claim to receive payment for lost wages, medical bills, etc.
Negligent Hiring – Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.
An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
youtube
A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Workplace Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment of employees by other employees has become an increasingly problematic source of business liability for employers. Workplace harassment violates federal law if it involves discriminatory treatment based on: race, color, sex (with or without sexual conduct), religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or the employee’s opposition job discrimination or participation in an investigation or complaint proceeding under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC.
Workplace harassment does not include simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a “tangible employment action,” such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion.
Even if the harassment did not lead to a “tangible employment action,” the employer can still be held liable unless it proves that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and the employee suffering the harassment unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.
To avoid workplace harassment liability, employers should establish, distribute and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment, and set out a procedure for making complaints. Preferably, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses owners may avoid liability through less formal means.
If a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought straight to any supervisor or the business owner.
Make sure you conduct an investigation. It is not enough to simply create a harassment policy. A business must also conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into any complaint that arises, and undertake swift and appropriate corrective action to fulfill its responsibility to “effectively prevent and correct harassment.” We have represented several companies with regards to different liability issues.
Free Consultation with a Business Lawyer
When you have an employment or business law issue you need help with, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Why You Need a Will
Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah
Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer
Divorce and Property Division
Patents
Things You Need to Know About Prenups
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/
0 notes
Text
Is a Business Liable for an Employee’s Actions?
Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.
youtube
Employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee’s labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.
When someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.
Job-Related Accidents
Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. We’ve seen this as business lawyers. The key phrase is “in the course of employment”. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible.
This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms “detour” or “frolic” to signify the difference.
youtube
A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).
youtube
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident.
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he’ll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
A special type of work-related accident occurs when one employee injures another employee while on the job. Workers’ compensation protects you from being sued by your employee provided that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her job when the accident occurred. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the employee would submit a claim to receive payment for lost wages, medical bills, etc.
Negligent Hiring – Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.
An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
youtube
A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Workplace Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment of employees by other employees has become an increasingly problematic source of business liability for employers. Workplace harassment violates federal law if it involves discriminatory treatment based on: race, color, sex (with or without sexual conduct), religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or the employee’s opposition job discrimination or participation in an investigation or complaint proceeding under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC.
Workplace harassment does not include simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a “tangible employment action,” such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion.
Even if the harassment did not lead to a “tangible employment action,” the employer can still be held liable unless it proves that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and the employee suffering the harassment unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.
To avoid workplace harassment liability, employers should establish, distribute and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment, and set out a procedure for making complaints. Preferably, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses owners may avoid liability through less formal means.
If a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought straight to any supervisor or the business owner.
Make sure you conduct an investigation. It is not enough to simply create a harassment policy. A business must also conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into any complaint that arises, and undertake swift and appropriate corrective action to fulfill its responsibility to “effectively prevent and correct harassment.” We have represented several companies with regards to different liability issues.
Free Consultation with a Business Lawyer
When you have an employment or business law issue you need help with, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Why You Need a Will
Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah
Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer
Divorce and Property Division
Patents
Things You Need to Know About Prenups
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/
0 notes
Text
Is a Business Liable for an Employee’s Actions?
Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.
youtube
Employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee’s labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.
When someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.
Job-Related Accidents
Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. We’ve seen this as business lawyers. The key phrase is “in the course of employment”. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible.
This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms “detour” or “frolic” to signify the difference.
youtube
A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).
youtube
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident.
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he’ll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
A special type of work-related accident occurs when one employee injures another employee while on the job. Workers’ compensation protects you from being sued by your employee provided that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her job when the accident occurred. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the employee would submit a claim to receive payment for lost wages, medical bills, etc.
Negligent Hiring – Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.
An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
youtube
A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Workplace Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment of employees by other employees has become an increasingly problematic source of business liability for employers. Workplace harassment violates federal law if it involves discriminatory treatment based on: race, color, sex (with or without sexual conduct), religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or the employee’s opposition job discrimination or participation in an investigation or complaint proceeding under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC.
Workplace harassment does not include simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a “tangible employment action,” such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion.
Even if the harassment did not lead to a “tangible employment action,” the employer can still be held liable unless it proves that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and the employee suffering the harassment unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.
To avoid workplace harassment liability, employers should establish, distribute and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment, and set out a procedure for making complaints. Preferably, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses owners may avoid liability through less formal means.
If a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought straight to any supervisor or the business owner.
Make sure you conduct an investigation. It is not enough to simply create a harassment policy. A business must also conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into any complaint that arises, and undertake swift and appropriate corrective action to fulfill its responsibility to “effectively prevent and correct harassment.” We have represented several companies with regards to different liability issues.
Free Consultation with a Business Lawyer
When you have an employment or business law issue you need help with, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Why You Need a Will
Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah
Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer
Divorce and Property Division
Patents
Things You Need to Know About Prenups
from https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/ from https://boaeatselephant.tumblr.com/post/181855558703
0 notes
Text
Is a Business Liable for an Employee’s Actions?
Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.
youtube
Employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee’s labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.
When someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.
Job-Related Accidents
Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. We’ve seen this as business lawyers. The key phrase is “in the course of employment”. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible.
This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms “detour” or “frolic” to signify the difference.
youtube
A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).
youtube
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident.
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he’ll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
A special type of work-related accident occurs when one employee injures another employee while on the job. Workers’ compensation protects you from being sued by your employee provided that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her job when the accident occurred. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the employee would submit a claim to receive payment for lost wages, medical bills, etc.
Negligent Hiring – Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.
An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
youtube
A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Workplace Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment of employees by other employees has become an increasingly problematic source of business liability for employers. Workplace harassment violates federal law if it involves discriminatory treatment based on: race, color, sex (with or without sexual conduct), religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or the employee’s opposition job discrimination or participation in an investigation or complaint proceeding under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC.
Workplace harassment does not include simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a “tangible employment action,” such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion.
Even if the harassment did not lead to a “tangible employment action,” the employer can still be held liable unless it proves that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and the employee suffering the harassment unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.
To avoid workplace harassment liability, employers should establish, distribute and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment, and set out a procedure for making complaints. Preferably, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses owners may avoid liability through less formal means.
If a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought straight to any supervisor or the business owner.
Make sure you conduct an investigation. It is not enough to simply create a harassment policy. A business must also conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into any complaint that arises, and undertake swift and appropriate corrective action to fulfill its responsibility to “effectively prevent and correct harassment.” We have represented several companies with regards to different liability issues.
Free Consultation with a Business Lawyer
When you have an employment or business law issue you need help with, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Why You Need a Will
Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah
Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer
Divorce and Property Division
Patents
Things You Need to Know About Prenups
Repost: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/ “Steven E. Rush / Divorce Lawyer Utah” http://www.ascentlawfirm.com/
Repost: https://stevenrushutah.wordpress.com/2019/01/09/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions-2/ * Steven E. Rush * https://stevenrushutah.wordpress.com/
0 notes
Text
Is a Business Liable for an Employee’s Actions?
Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.
youtube
Employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee’s labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.
When someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.
Job-Related Accidents
Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. We’ve seen this as business lawyers. The key phrase is “in the course of employment”. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible.
This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms “detour” or “frolic” to signify the difference.
youtube
A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).
youtube
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident.
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he’ll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
A special type of work-related accident occurs when one employee injures another employee while on the job. Workers’ compensation protects you from being sued by your employee provided that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her job when the accident occurred. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the employee would submit a claim to receive payment for lost wages, medical bills, etc.
Negligent Hiring – Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.
An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
youtube
A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Workplace Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment of employees by other employees has become an increasingly problematic source of business liability for employers. Workplace harassment violates federal law if it involves discriminatory treatment based on: race, color, sex (with or without sexual conduct), religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or the employee’s opposition job discrimination or participation in an investigation or complaint proceeding under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC.
Workplace harassment does not include simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a “tangible employment action,” such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion.
Even if the harassment did not lead to a “tangible employment action,” the employer can still be held liable unless it proves that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and the employee suffering the harassment unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.
To avoid workplace harassment liability, employers should establish, distribute and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment, and set out a procedure for making complaints. Preferably, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses owners may avoid liability through less formal means.
If a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought straight to any supervisor or the business owner.
Make sure you conduct an investigation. It is not enough to simply create a harassment policy. A business must also conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into any complaint that arises, and undertake swift and appropriate corrective action to fulfill its responsibility to “effectively prevent and correct harassment.” We have represented several companies with regards to different liability issues.
Free Consultation with a Business Lawyer
When you have an employment or business law issue you need help with, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Why You Need a Will
Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah
Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer
Divorce and Property Division
Patents
Things You Need to Know About Prenups
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/
0 notes
Text
Is a Business Liable for an Employee’s Actions?
Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.
youtube
Employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee’s labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.
When someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.
Job-Related Accidents
Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. We’ve seen this as business lawyers. The key phrase is “in the course of employment”. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible.
This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms “detour” or “frolic” to signify the difference.
youtube
A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).
youtube
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident.
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he’ll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
A special type of work-related accident occurs when one employee injures another employee while on the job. Workers’ compensation protects you from being sued by your employee provided that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her job when the accident occurred. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the employee would submit a claim to receive payment for lost wages, medical bills, etc.
Negligent Hiring – Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.
An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
youtube
A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Workplace Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment of employees by other employees has become an increasingly problematic source of business liability for employers. Workplace harassment violates federal law if it involves discriminatory treatment based on: race, color, sex (with or without sexual conduct), religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or the employee’s opposition job discrimination or participation in an investigation or complaint proceeding under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC.
Workplace harassment does not include simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a “tangible employment action,” such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion.
Even if the harassment did not lead to a “tangible employment action,” the employer can still be held liable unless it proves that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and the employee suffering the harassment unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.
To avoid workplace harassment liability, employers should establish, distribute and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment, and set out a procedure for making complaints. Preferably, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses owners may avoid liability through less formal means.
If a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought straight to any supervisor or the business owner.
Make sure you conduct an investigation. It is not enough to simply create a harassment policy. A business must also conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into any complaint that arises, and undertake swift and appropriate corrective action to fulfill its responsibility to “effectively prevent and correct harassment.” We have represented several companies with regards to different liability issues.
Free Consultation with a Business Lawyer
When you have an employment or business law issue you need help with, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Why You Need a Will
Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah
Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer
Divorce and Property Division
Patents
Things You Need to Know About Prenups
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/
from Securities Lawyer In Utah https://securitieslawyerinutah.wordpress.com/2019/01/09/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/
0 notes
Text
Is a Business Liable for an Employee’s Actions?
Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.
youtube
Employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee’s labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.
When someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.
Job-Related Accidents
Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. We’ve seen this as business lawyers. The key phrase is “in the course of employment”. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible.
This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms “detour” or “frolic” to signify the difference.
youtube
A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).
youtube
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident.
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he’ll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
A special type of work-related accident occurs when one employee injures another employee while on the job. Workers’ compensation protects you from being sued by your employee provided that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her job when the accident occurred. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the employee would submit a claim to receive payment for lost wages, medical bills, etc.
Negligent Hiring – Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.
An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
youtube
A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Workplace Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment of employees by other employees has become an increasingly problematic source of business liability for employers. Workplace harassment violates federal law if it involves discriminatory treatment based on: race, color, sex (with or without sexual conduct), religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or the employee’s opposition job discrimination or participation in an investigation or complaint proceeding under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC.
Workplace harassment does not include simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a “tangible employment action,” such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion.
Even if the harassment did not lead to a “tangible employment action,” the employer can still be held liable unless it proves that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and the employee suffering the harassment unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.
To avoid workplace harassment liability, employers should establish, distribute and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment, and set out a procedure for making complaints. Preferably, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses owners may avoid liability through less formal means.
If a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought straight to any supervisor or the business owner.
Make sure you conduct an investigation. It is not enough to simply create a harassment policy. A business must also conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into any complaint that arises, and undertake swift and appropriate corrective action to fulfill its responsibility to “effectively prevent and correct harassment.” We have represented several companies with regards to different liability issues.
Free Consultation with a Business Lawyer
When you have an employment or business law issue you need help with, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Why You Need a Will
Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah
Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer
Divorce and Property Division
Patents
Things You Need to Know About Prenups
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/
0 notes
Text
Is a Business Liable for an Employee’s Actions?
Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.
youtube
Employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee’s labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.
When someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.
Job-Related Accidents
Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. We’ve seen this as business lawyers. The key phrase is “in the course of employment”. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible.
This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms “detour” or “frolic” to signify the difference.
youtube
A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).
youtube
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident.
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he’ll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
A special type of work-related accident occurs when one employee injures another employee while on the job. Workers’ compensation protects you from being sued by your employee provided that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her job when the accident occurred. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the employee would submit a claim to receive payment for lost wages, medical bills, etc.
Negligent Hiring – Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.
An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
youtube
A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Workplace Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment of employees by other employees has become an increasingly problematic source of business liability for employers. Workplace harassment violates federal law if it involves discriminatory treatment based on: race, color, sex (with or without sexual conduct), religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or the employee’s opposition job discrimination or participation in an investigation or complaint proceeding under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC.
Workplace harassment does not include simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a “tangible employment action,” such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion.
Even if the harassment did not lead to a “tangible employment action,” the employer can still be held liable unless it proves that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and the employee suffering the harassment unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.
To avoid workplace harassment liability, employers should establish, distribute and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment, and set out a procedure for making complaints. Preferably, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses owners may avoid liability through less formal means.
If a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought straight to any supervisor or the business owner.
Make sure you conduct an investigation. It is not enough to simply create a harassment policy. A business must also conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into any complaint that arises, and undertake swift and appropriate corrective action to fulfill its responsibility to “effectively prevent and correct harassment.” We have represented several companies with regards to different liability issues.
Free Consultation with a Business Lawyer
When you have an employment or business law issue you need help with, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Why You Need a Will
Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah
Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer
Divorce and Property Division
Patents
Things You Need to Know About Prenups
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/
0 notes
Text
Is a Business Liable for an Employee’s Actions?
Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.
youtube
Employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee’s labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.
When someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.
Job-Related Accidents
Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. We’ve seen this as business lawyers. The key phrase is “in the course of employment”. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible.
This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms “detour” or “frolic” to signify the difference.
youtube
A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).
youtube
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident.
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he’ll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
A special type of work-related accident occurs when one employee injures another employee while on the job. Workers’ compensation protects you from being sued by your employee provided that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her job when the accident occurred. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the employee would submit a claim to receive payment for lost wages, medical bills, etc.
Negligent Hiring – Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.
An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
youtube
A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Workplace Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment of employees by other employees has become an increasingly problematic source of business liability for employers. Workplace harassment violates federal law if it involves discriminatory treatment based on: race, color, sex (with or without sexual conduct), religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or the employee’s opposition job discrimination or participation in an investigation or complaint proceeding under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC.
Workplace harassment does not include simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a “tangible employment action,” such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion.
Even if the harassment did not lead to a “tangible employment action,” the employer can still be held liable unless it proves that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and the employee suffering the harassment unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.
To avoid workplace harassment liability, employers should establish, distribute and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment, and set out a procedure for making complaints. Preferably, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses owners may avoid liability through less formal means.
If a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought straight to any supervisor or the business owner.
Make sure you conduct an investigation. It is not enough to simply create a harassment policy. A business must also conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into any complaint that arises, and undertake swift and appropriate corrective action to fulfill its responsibility to “effectively prevent and correct harassment.” We have represented several companies with regards to different liability issues.
Free Consultation with a Business Lawyer
When you have an employment or business law issue you need help with, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Why You Need a Will
Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah
Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer
Divorce and Property Division
Patents
Things You Need to Know About Prenups
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/
0 notes
Text
Is a Business Liable for an Employee’s Actions?
Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.
youtube
Employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee’s labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.
When someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.
Job-Related Accidents
Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. We’ve seen this as business lawyers. The key phrase is “in the course of employment”. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible.
This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms “detour” or “frolic” to signify the difference.
youtube
A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).
youtube
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident.
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he’ll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
A special type of work-related accident occurs when one employee injures another employee while on the job. Workers’ compensation protects you from being sued by your employee provided that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her job when the accident occurred. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the employee would submit a claim to receive payment for lost wages, medical bills, etc.
Negligent Hiring – Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.
An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
youtube
A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Workplace Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment of employees by other employees has become an increasingly problematic source of business liability for employers. Workplace harassment violates federal law if it involves discriminatory treatment based on: race, color, sex (with or without sexual conduct), religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or the employee’s opposition job discrimination or participation in an investigation or complaint proceeding under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC.
Workplace harassment does not include simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a “tangible employment action,” such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion.
Even if the harassment did not lead to a “tangible employment action,” the employer can still be held liable unless it proves that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and the employee suffering the harassment unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.
To avoid workplace harassment liability, employers should establish, distribute and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment, and set out a procedure for making complaints. Preferably, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses owners may avoid liability through less formal means.
If a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought straight to any supervisor or the business owner.
Make sure you conduct an investigation. It is not enough to simply create a harassment policy. A business must also conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into any complaint that arises, and undertake swift and appropriate corrective action to fulfill its responsibility to “effectively prevent and correct harassment.” We have represented several companies with regards to different liability issues.
Free Consultation with a Business Lawyer
When you have an employment or business law issue you need help with, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Why You Need a Will
Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah
Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer
Divorce and Property Division
Patents
Things You Need to Know About Prenups
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/
0 notes
Text
Is a Business Liable for an Employee’s Actions?
Employers, and not the employees themselves, will often be held liable for the conduct of their employees. This is true even if the employer had no intention to cause harm and played no physical role in the harm. To understand why, you have to understand two basic concepts that underlie employer liability.
youtube
Employers are seen as directing the behavior of their employees and accordingly must share in the good as well as the bad results of that behavior. By the same token that an employer is legally entitled to the rewards of an employee’s labor (profit), an employer also has the legal liability if that same behavior results in harm.
When someone is injured or harmed and needs to be compensated, who is the most likely to pay: the employee or the employer? Fair or not, the legal system is interested in making the victim whole, and assigning liability to the employer rather than the employee has the best chance of meeting that goal.
Job-Related Accidents
Employers are vicariously liable under the doctrine of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. We’ve seen this as business lawyers. The key phrase is “in the course of employment”. For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized by the employer or be so closely related to an authorized act that an employer should be held responsible.
This means that there is a significant difference between an employee that causes a job-related accident and an employee who causes an accident while on the job that is unrelated to his or her employment. Courts sometime use the terms “detour” or “frolic” to signify the difference.
youtube
A detour is a deviation from explicit instructions, but so related to the original instructions that the employer will still be held liable. A frolic on the other hand, is simply the employee acting in his or her own capacity rather than at the instruction of an employer. Here are some examples to illustrate the difference:
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. Late at night, a sales person drives out to a bar for purely personal fun and hits a pedestrian. The employer will likely not be held responsible because, although the car is owned by the employer, the employee was using the car for personal, not business, reasons when the accident occurred.
A company loans its sales staff vehicles to enable them to make sales calls in the area. As part of doing business, the company encourages its sale staff to take potential clients out for dinner and drinks. One night, after taking a client out for drinks, the employee is driving home and hits a pedestrian. The employer likely will be held responsible since it encourages sales people to take clients out for food and drinks, and that is precisely what the employee was doing when the accident occurred. Employer liability would be more ambiguous in this example if the employee turned out to be intoxicated (something the employer might have expected to happen, but likely would have warned the employee against).
youtube
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. While away from the office, an employee calls in for a telephone conference, becomes distracted, and hits another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely liable for the car accident.
A company gives its employees cell phones to enable them to call into meetings and stay in touch while traveling. An employee decides to call his mom to let her know that he’ll be in town next week to visit. During the call he becomes distracted and runs into another car causing serious injury. The employer is likely not liable for the car accident, unless a jury decides that the employer should have known that employees would use the phone for personal calls and took no steps to prevent misuse of the phone.
A special type of work-related accident occurs when one employee injures another employee while on the job. Workers’ compensation protects you from being sued by your employee provided that the employee was acting within the scope of his or her job when the accident occurred. Instead of filing a lawsuit, the employee would submit a claim to receive payment for lost wages, medical bills, etc.
Negligent Hiring – Negligent Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm.
An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
youtube
A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Workplace Harassment Claims
Workplace harassment of employees by other employees has become an increasingly problematic source of business liability for employers. Workplace harassment violates federal law if it involves discriminatory treatment based on: race, color, sex (with or without sexual conduct), religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or the employee’s opposition job discrimination or participation in an investigation or complaint proceeding under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or EEOC.
Workplace harassment does not include simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a “tangible employment action,” such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion.
Even if the harassment did not lead to a “tangible employment action,” the employer can still be held liable unless it proves that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any harassment; and the employee suffering the harassment unreasonably failed to complain to management or to avoid harm otherwise.
To avoid workplace harassment liability, employers should establish, distribute and enforce a policy prohibiting harassment, and set out a procedure for making complaints. Preferably, the policy and procedure should be in writing. Small businesses owners may avoid liability through less formal means.
If a business is sufficiently small that the owner maintains regular contact with all employees, the owner can tell the employees at staff meetings that harassment is prohibited, that employees should report such conduct promptly, and that a complaint can be brought straight to any supervisor or the business owner.
Make sure you conduct an investigation. It is not enough to simply create a harassment policy. A business must also conduct prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations into any complaint that arises, and undertake swift and appropriate corrective action to fulfill its responsibility to “effectively prevent and correct harassment.” We have represented several companies with regards to different liability issues.
Free Consultation with a Business Lawyer
When you have an employment or business law issue you need help with, call Ascent Law for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.
Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506
Ascent Law LLC
4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews
Recent Posts
Why You Need a Will
Utah Divorce Lawyer on Divorce in Utah
Call a West Jordan Car Accident Lawyer
Divorce and Property Division
Patents
Things You Need to Know About Prenups
Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/is-a-business-liable-for-an-employees-actions/
0 notes