Employment Newsletter

Negligent Hiring Doctrine

“Negligent hiring” is a legal doctrine that holds employers liable for unlawful acts committed by their employees. The issue arises when an employer hires a person that she knew or should have known could pose an undue risk of harm to others within the course and scope of employment.

Under this doctrine, the employer has the responsibility for checking the background and references of any job applicant before placing that individual in a situation of contact with the public. Examples of businesses particularly at risk may include:

• Schools
• Housing
• Youth organizations
• Customer-service

Establishing a Claim Under Negligent Hiring

A person that alleges injuries caused by an employee and expects to hold the employer liable under the doctrine of negligent hiring must show that:

1. The employer owed a duty to that person because there was an association or connection between that person and the services or business the employer provides;
2. The nature and frequency of the employee’s contact with the public may pose a potential risk of harm; and
3. Evidence of the employee’s potential risk to others existed prior to and at the time of the hiring and that the employer failed to investigate.

Negligent Hiring Frequently Cited in Litigation

In December, 2005, the parents of an eight year-old boy filed a lawsuit against FedEx Corp., alleging the negligent hiring of Paul Sykes, a convicted sex offender. The lawsuit alleged that Sykes approached the family at the Connecticut FedEx Kinko’s store where he was employed, and offered to repair their home computer. While visiting their home to repair the computer, Sykes allegedly assaulted their son. The lawsuit asserted that FedEx knew, or should have known, of Sykes’ dangerous propensities as a sexual predator. In April of 2007 Sykes was sentenced to 12 years in prison for the molestation. In 2008, a federal judge dismissed the civil lawsuit against FedEx, ruling the company could not be held responsible for the conduct of its employee outside the workplace. The case is currently on appeal.

© 2026 NextClient.com, Inc. All rights reserved.

• Respondeat Superior – Liability of Employers for Employee Actions
  In general, people are not liable for the actions of others. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. One long-standing exception is the doctrine of “respondeat superior,” a Latin term meaning “let the master answer.”... Read more.
• Liability for Employee Cellular Phone Use
  In one decade, cellular telephone use has gone from being a novelty for the fortunate few, to being commonplace in our society. Most Americans have a “cell phone” and many use them while driving. In light of the associated dangers,... Read more.
• Legalities of Conducting Mass Layoffs
  Before executing a mass layoff, employers must consider all possible legal repercussions. Important considerations may include a close review of any labor or employment contract language and applicable state and federal laws. If such... Read more.
• Disproving Employer Justification for Termination
  According to a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., an employee may have a right to a jury trial based on discrimination even where no direct evidence of discrimination is offered. The... Read more.

• Rapper Lil Wayne Awarded More Than $29,000 After Assault Lawsuit Is Dismissed
• DOJ Clears Paramount’s $110 Billion Warner Bros. Discovery Deal
• Female Seattle Police Officers Reach $2.6 Million Settlement in SPD Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
• Federal Judge Blocks Paxton’s ActBlue Lawsuit, Citing First Amendment Retaliation
• Massachusetts Man Convicted of Sexually Assaulting Women While Posing as Rideshare Driver