Ethical and Criminal Responsibility

Ethical and Criminal Responsibility

Lori Dooley
University of Phoenix
LAW531- Business Law
Group ID: PA16MBA03
HEDY ZHANG
May 16, 2016

Ethical and Criminal Responsibility

Ethical and Criminal Responsibility

An employer has an ethical obligation to take corrective or preventative action when the
employer knows, or has reason to know, that the employee poses a danger to others due to the
foreseeability of harm. As the seriousness of the harm increases, so does the need to take action
to avoid it (Mallor, Barnes, Langvardt, Prenkert, & McCrory, 2015). Quite simply, the facts that
the employer has impacts what kind of and to what extent their corrective or preventative action
they will take. If the employer knows, or has reason to know, that an employee poses a danger,
the employer has the ethical and social responsibility to protect its employees. As an employer,
or manager, your job is to be a leader and an employees safety and welfare have to be the most
important factor. I believe a reasonable person, or employer, of ordinary prudence would take
corrective or preventative action if they knew that an employee posed a danger to others. If a
reasonable person of ordinary prudence would take action, I believe an employer has an absolute
ethical obligation to protect others.
An employer having irrefutable evidence versus a reasonable suspicion would change the
course of action that employer would or should take. Irrefutable evidence that the employee
poses a danger to others is information that the employer must act on immediately in order to
protect others. However, if an employer has only a reasonable suspicion, the immediate
supervisor should speak to the employee and determine if corrective or preventative action is
necessary based on the foreseeability of harm. Both irrefutable evidence and reasonable
suspicion are reasonable foreseeability of harm. Negligence law rests on the premise that
members of society normally should behave in ways that avoid the creation of unreasonable risks
of harm to others (Mallor, Barnes, Langvardt, Prenkert, & McCrory, 2015). Failure by an

Ethical and Criminal Responsibility

employer to take corrective or preventative action when an employee poses a danger to others
may create a breach of duty and could result in a lawsuit.
According to the OSHA General Duty Clause, an employer is required to provide their
workers a place of employment free from recognized hazards to safety that are causing or are
likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees (De Castro, 2005). An
employers ethical obligation extends to employees, customers, and those deliveries goods to the
business. The employers ethical obligation should entail recognizing and fixing any safety
hazards, paying the employee the agreed rate at the agreed upon time, providing adequate time
for needs such as illness and pregnancy, and providing mentorship and leadership opportunities
(Caldwell, Floyd, Atkins, & Holzgrefe, 2012). In the case of an employee that poses a danger to
other, the employer has an ethical obligation to protect its customers and other employees from
physical harm or death.
The scenario of an employee that poses a danger to others demonstrates negligence on the
part of the employer if they failed to take corrective or preventative action. Recklessness has
both a subjective component (awareness that one is creating a serious and relatively easily
avoidable risk of harm to others) and an objective component (one's conduct, assessed
objectively, must be negligent) (Henderson & Twerski, 2001). Not taking action when an
employee poses a danger to others could potentially lead to a tort case of recklessness or
negligence.
Tort law is based on civil liability while criminal liability would determine if any
wrongful behavior took place. The primary fault underlying a negligence claim is the actor's
failure to take a reasonable precaution against the risk of harm (Simons, 2002). If the employee

Ethical and Criminal Responsibility

threatened or physical harmed anyone he or she could and probably would be criminal liable.
However, the employer would hold criminal liability if the employee was acting within the scope
of his or her duties. The Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 generalizes that criminal liability
can be negated by an employer by doing what is reasonably practicable (Barrett, 1997).

References

Ethical and Criminal Responsibility

A. B. De Castro. Health & Safety: The OSHA General Duty ClauseThe American Journal of
Nursing Vol. 105, No. 2 (Feb., 2005), p. 104 Published by: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable
Barrett, B. (1997). COMMENTARY. Industrial Law Journal, 26(2), 149-158.
Caldwell, C., Floyd, L. A., Atkins, R., & Holzgrefe, R. (2012). Ethical duties of organizational
citizens: Obligations owed by highly committed employees. Journal of Business Ethics,
110(3), 285-299. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1154-9
Henderson,James A.,,Jr, & Twerski, A. D. (2001). Intent and recklessness in tort: The practical
craft of restating law. Vanderbilt Law Review, 54(3), 1133-1156. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/198836883?accountid=458
Mallor, J., Barnes, A. J., Langvardt, A., Prenkert, J. D., & McCrory, M. A. (2015). Business
Law, 16th Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from
http://online.vitalsource.com/books/1259631826/epubcfi/6/44
Simons, K. W. (2002). Dimensions of Negligence in Criminal and Tort Law. Theoretical
Inquiries In Law, 3(2), 283-331.