Are Employers Liable for Crimes Committed by an Off-Duty Employee?

To begin answering this question, it is crucial to assess the circumstances surrounding the employees' criminal activity. According to Zuckerman Spaeder, inadequate background checks and workplace violence can open other employees up to costly liability, if another commits a crime while off-duty. Either way, consider speaking to criminal defense attorney Christopher W. Adams of Adams & Bischoff in light of such incidents.

In general, if an employee commits a criminal offense within the course of employment, it is acceptable for the employer to be liable. How about a situation when an employee commits a crime outside employment? Should the employer still be held liable despite the employee committing the crime off-duty?

Why should an employer take responsibility for the criminal actions of an employee when the employee committed the act outside the workspace? The typical answer absolves the employer of any liability, however, there are some exceptions.

The Goff v. Holden & Charter Communications, LLC Case

A Dallas County, Texas, jury fined Charter Communications $7.375 billion in compensatory and punitive damages. The case saw the Charter penalized for an employee's criminal conduct. But what stood out was that the employee was off duty.

Roy Holden, a Charter cable technician, visited 84-year-old Betty Thomas after receiving a service call in December 2019. Off-duty the following day, Holden drove a company van back to her house, where he robbed and killed her. Holden was subsequently arrested and pleaded guilty, now receiving a life sentence.

The family of Betty Thomas' sued Charter, attributing her death to the company's gross negligence. Since Holden was off duty when he committed the crime, Charter seemed able to defend itself. However, as the case proceeded, the plaintiffs proved that Charter was liable and failed to prevent the tragedy.

The evidence showed Charter failed to verify Holden's employment history when they hired him. The company did run a criminal background check on him and found nothing. However, the testimony showed Charter failed to carry out employment verification alongside a criminal background check.

Because of this, Charter did not know that Holden was fired from previous jobs due to misconduct. This ranged from forgery to disregarding supervisor instructions and unprofessional workplace conduct. Holden also omitted some jobs from his application, which is proof of Charter's unavoidable liability.

Another aspect of evidence substantiating Charter's negligence was the blatant warning signs Holden displayed days prior to the murder. The company failed to recognize and act on them before sending him to Betty Thomas' home. The first red flag was Holden begging a supervisor for money days before the murder. The supervisor refused but did not report it.

Additionally, days before the murder, Holden reportedly had a breakdown while at work, as his wife had recently left him. He even misused a company van. After all these warning signs, Charter still did not report Holden for misconduct. If the company had recognized these risk factors, it could have prevented this terrible tragedy.

Points to Pick Out From the Case

Employers should prioritize the importance of background checks on both criminal history and previous employment. Also, charter witnesses claimed that the company did not train employees to identify workplace violence and warning signs. Employers can avoid this by designing effective workplace violence prevention programs.

A company or an employer can be equally responsible for the criminal misconduct of an employee. As such, employers should learn that their negligence can cause liability.

Conclusion

Employers may face liability for employees' off-duty criminal actions if negligence, such as inadequate background checks or ignoring red flags, is proven. This highlights the importance of thorough hiring practices and proactive workplace violence prevention. Vigilance in these areas can mitigate risks, safeguarding both the company and the community.