Davis V. the Board of County Commissioner of Doña Ana County

Assignment #1 – Davis v. The Board of County Commissioner of Doña Ana County

Derek B. Peacock

January 23, 2012

Business Employment Law - HRM 510

Dr. Zelphia A. Brown, SPHR, Instructor

Assignment #1 – Davis v. The Board of County Commissioner of Doña Ana County

1. What is the legal issue in this case? The legal issues in the case of Davis vs The Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County are acts of unethical behavior by Frank Steele and Mochen supervisors of Joseph Herrera misrepresenting character. Steele the director, wrote and gave an oral excellent recommendation references. The case stands on that employers should be responsible for former employees or third person when misrepresent facts endangering humans. The big problem in this case is law enforcement officer misrepresentation other law enforcement officer duties when making recommendations.

2. Why does the court conclude that Doña Ana County could be held liable for negligent referral (misrepresentation)? The court concluded that Doña Ana County could be held liable due to substantial risk of physical harm. Their favorable written and oral recommendation gave MVH's a reasonable decision to hire. The case alleged that Steele and Mochen elected to offer recommendations; they as law enforcement office have the duty to exercise ethical practices giving accurate information.

Employers who choose to recommend other for employment are responsible and owe it as a duty of reasonable when it involves care of third parties. Also, noted they had multiple chances to tell the truth, but decline to utilize reasonable of care. This causes employers to be liable for negligent misrepresentation.

Both Steele and Mochen fail to be truthful or disclose the report of sexual harassment allegations by Herrera. They had multiple opportunities to disclose conduct and performance reports detailing with the behavior when in-care of female inmates. They also failed to inform the...