Wise v. Complete Staffing Services, Inc.
2001 WL 1097010, 56 S.W.3d 900 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While an employer generally has no duty to conduct a criminal background check for non-job-related misconduct, if it voluntarily undertakes to perform such a check, it assumes a duty to do so in a non-negligent manner.
Facts:
- McKinley Wise was a supervisor at Mrs. Baird’s Bakery.
- Complete Staffing Services (Staffing) provided Meredith Turner to Mrs. Baird’s as a temporary worker for unskilled manual labor.
- Meredith Turner attacked and severely injured McKinley Wise while working at Mrs. Baird’s Bakery.
- McKinley Wise alleged Staffing was negligent in employing Turner because it did not sufficiently investigate his criminal background.
- Staffing performed a criminal history check on Turner but limited its search to Harris County, where Turner had lived for the last four years.
- Turner's prior criminal record was from Fort Bend County.
- Staffing represented to Mrs. Baird’s that it had performed a “thorough” background check on Turner.
Procedural Posture:
- McKinley and Yolanda Wise sued Complete Staffing Services, Inc. in trial court, alleging negligence and gross negligence in employing Meredith Turner, and negligence per se based on a statutory violation.
- Yolanda Wise also sought recovery for loss of consortium.
- Complete Staffing Services, Inc. moved for summary judgment, contending it had no general duty to obtain criminal records and no special circumstances existed to impose a heightened duty.
- The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of Complete Staffing Services, Inc. on all claims.
- McKinley and Yolanda Wise appealed the trial court's summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer that voluntarily undertakes to perform a criminal background check on a temporary employee have a duty to perform that check in a non-negligent manner, even if no general duty to conduct such a check initially existed?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Cornelius
Yes, an employer that voluntarily undertakes to perform a criminal background check on a temporary employee has a duty to perform that check in a non-negligent manner, and a factual dispute over the adequacy of such a check precludes summary judgment. The court first reiterated the general rule that a person typically has no legal duty to protect another from the criminal acts of a third person or to control another's conduct, and that negligent hiring liability primarily arises when an employer hires an incompetent or unfit servant for a job that foreseeably creates a risk of harm due to their employment duties. Citing Guidry v. Nat’l Freight, Inc., the court noted that the general negligent hiring rule aims to protect from workers unsafe or dangerous on the job, meaning the incompetency must be job-related. Since Turner was doing unskilled manual labor and his injury to Wise was an 'intervening criminal act' not related to job incompetence, Mrs. Baird's (and thus Staffing, stepping into Mrs. Baird's shoes) had no initial duty to check non-job-related criminal histories. However, Staffing did voluntarily undertake to perform a criminal history check on Turner and represented it as 'thorough.' The court held that if an actor voluntarily undertakes to perform a service, they assume a duty to perform it without negligence. Because Staffing limited its check to Harris County while Turner's record was in Fort Bend County, and Wise presented evidence that such a limited check was inadequate or negligently performed, a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Staffing negligently performed its undertaken investigation. Therefore, summary judgment on this specific negligent hiring claim was improper. The court rejected Wise’s 'special circumstances' argument, finding no authority to consider Wise part of a 'specially protected group' in this context, and also affirmed summary judgment on the negligence per se claim, finding no evidence Staffing acted as a regulated 'investigation company.'
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinction between an employer's general duty to investigate an employee's background and a duty arising from a voluntary undertaking. While employers typically aren't obligated to conduct extensive background checks for non-job-related misconduct, this ruling establishes that once an employer chooses to perform such a check, they assume a legal duty to execute it non-negligently. This creates a powerful incentive for companies to either avoid performing background checks altogether or to ensure they are comprehensively and competently conducted, as a poorly performed check can lead to liability even if no initial duty to investigate existed. Future cases will likely scrutinize the scope and adequacy of voluntary background checks when an injury occurs.
