Employer Liability for Infractions: Diaz v. Carcamo

Introduction

In most cases, when it comes to infractions, it is the employer who always takes accountability for the actions. One of the cases is Diaz v. Carcamo. The case scrutinizes two theories which try to justify which of the two parties (employer or employee) is liable for the infractions. One of the affected parties, Diaz, expects to get compensation.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Relationships

Carcamo and Sugar Transport

The case of the Diaz v. Carcamo involved an employee, Mr. Carcamo who was an employee under the Sugar Transport of the Northwest, LLC. The case meant that being an employee, Mr. Carcamo had to hold his employer responsible. Despite Mr. Carcamo having a role in the accident, he was not the one who started the accident. From the analysis, it is evident that a car operated by another person wanted to pass Mr. Carcamo and ended up hitting him. The negligence of the driver may have caused the accident. The company acknowledged that Mr. Carcamo was operating machinery at the time of the accident.

Employee and Independent Contractor

According to Bennett-Alexander (2019), Title VII and ERISA define an employee as a person "employed" by the employer. On the other hand, a contractor is an individual who performs work based on their skills and is not in any way affiliated to the employer in regards to the details or methods of executing the tasks (Bennett-Alexander, 2019). For an employee to be accommodated into the company, there is the need for the completion of the hiring process, which usually falls into the hands of human resources (falls under W-4). On the other hand, a contractor relies on submitting Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to facilitate interaction with the company (falls under W-9).

Liability and Entrustment

Most of the liabilities within an organization usually start from the employer and trickle down to the employee. Should an employee get into an accident, the company remains liable along with the employee. The employer is considered negligent under the negligent entrustment. The Sugar Transport failed to conduct a background check, and in turn, they have to be held with vicarious liability and negligent entrustment.

HR Responsibility

The Human Resource department is vital to the hiring process within an organization. They must ensure that the organization gets a viable candidate for a vacant position within the institution. To facilitate the hiring of new employees, a complete background check is essential to determine if the employees are fit to take on the job. In this case, the HR department failed to carry out a background check on Carcamo. One of the areas which HR was unable to check is Carcamo's driving history and decided that it was a matter that needed less attention. Despite the HR not taking part in Carcamo's hiring process, they still deserve to be penalized as they admitted to being part of the blame.

Carcamo was considered unemployable based on Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration policies. The disqualification from the agency should have been a red flag to the HR department and should have convinced them not to hire Jose Carcamo. To add more problems, the HR department failed to comply with the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) which requires mandatory use of Form I-9 in the hiring process of new employees in the U.S.

Employment Laws

Conducting a background check on an employee is a legal process and should be carried out in an ethical process and should ensure compliance with company regulations. The failure by the company to include the tachograph into the record may be considered an honest mistake. However, should the company have intentionally hidden the information to shift the focus from the driver, it would have been considered an obstruction and considered a crime. Tampering with evidence may happen when information is altered or destroyed. Should a person interfere with evidence, the individual should be held liable for their actions.

The California law states that any individual or party that commits an atrocity regardless of the type of infraction is liable to pay the victim of any losses incurred, including medical bills. However, the implementation of the Civil Code section 1431.2 notes that any person caught under offense is liable to pay the plaintiff based on the percentage of damage done (Hawkins Parnell & Young, 2019). The damage is factored under the law of negligence. To determine the extent of damage, the jurors have to factor in several aspects to make their judgment. Failure to act reasonably is one aspect that is regarded as negligence.

Conclusion

To conclude, the failure by the Sugar Transport HR department to conduct a background check on Mr. Carcamo may have resulted in the accident. Had they bothered to check on his background, they would have found that he is an incompetent driver before his accident with Diaz. Therefore, my recommendation is that the Sugar Company streamline their hiring process to account for stringent background checks. This will, in the future, ensure more safety among employee and promote a positive brand image for the organization.

References

Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. P. (2019). Employment law for business. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/39317796/Employment_Law_For_Business_by_Dawn_Bennett_Alexander_Laura_Hartman

Hawkins Parnell & Young. (2019). Who Goes on the Verdict Form: Proposition 51 and Apportionment of Fault in California. Retrieved 30 September 2019, from https://www.hpylaw.com/publications/who-goes-on-the-verdict-form-proposition-51-and-apportionment-of-fault-in-california/