Case Study:
Ricky East was employed by Interim Personnel of Central Virginia, Inc., a firm that provided temporary employees to business and other organizations. When East applied at Interim, he falsely stated that he possessed a valid driver’s license. In reality, however, his license had been suspended because of two criminal convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). He later left Interim’s employ before applying to return to work there. Again he falsely stated that he possessed a valid driver’s license, and he did not list his DUI convictions in response to an application question about whether he had been convicted of criminal offenses. Interim rehired East without asking to see his driver’s license and without performing a criminal background check. Later, Interim assigned East to work for the Alumni Association of the University of Virginia in a part-time building assistant’s position that required driving for short distances during his work hours. In recommending East to the Alumni Association, Interim represented that East had a good driving record, that he had not been involved in any traffic accidents, that he had never “shown up drunk on the job,” and that he had not been the subject of complaints from other employers to whom he had been assigned. The Alumni Association accepted East without asking him whether he had a valid driver’s license. East worked for the Alumni Association for two months, during which he regularly drove an Alumni Association truck for short distances as part of his job duties. On Wednesday of Thanksgiving week, East was told to keep a key to the alumni building during the holiday weekend because his supervisor, who normally locked and unlocked the alumni building, would be out of town. East was instructed to lock the building on Wednesday and unlock it on Saturday. On Wednesday, East used the building key to help him gain access to a key to the Alumni Association truck he usually drove. Without permission, East drove the truck to Richmond, Virginia, and then back to his home in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Friday. During the day on Friday, he consumed excessive amounts of alcohol and became intoxicated. While intoxicated, he drove the Alumni Association truck and caused an accident in which Mildred Messer was injured. Messer sued East, but also named the Alumni Association and Interim Personnel as defendants on the theory that they were negligent in hiring East. A Virginia jury returned a verdict in favor of Messer and against all three defendants. East did not appeal, but the Alumni Association and Interim did, arguing that they should not have been held liable for negligent hiring. Were they correct in making this argument?
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.