From: keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP (keith garrard)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: Why no college jobs?
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:52:12 GMT
Organization: California-Nevada Methodist Homes

In article <1992Aug12.165923.5746@news.vanderbilt.edu> sayre@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Frank Sayre) writes:
>In article <55@cnmhnet.UUCP> keith garrard, keithg@cnmhnet.UUCP writes:
>>We all know that anyone
>>who offers any kind of recommendation nowadays, is setting themselves
>>up for potential liability problems if the person doesn't work out.  
>>Most companies nowadays will only verify that a person indeed was
>>employed there, and maybe give dates.  That is it.   Anything more
>>than that can get them into trouble.  
>Do we know that? Can you summarize an example or two w/ names 
>changed to protect the innocent? Did companies ever do more than 
>verify employment in response to blind outside requests? And isn't
>Frank C. Sayre                           "When I die, throw me to the
>Vanderbilt Univ Comp Center      I'm used to it." Diogenes the Cynic
Yes, Frank, this has happened many times.  The precedent-setting case
occured back in the early 80's.  A fellow was a good hard worker, and had
been all his life.  He was dependable, always on time, and always had the
highest recommendations from his superiors.  However, he wanted to move
on to better challenges, so he sent out resumes.  Company "B" expressed an
interest, and called his current employer.  They glorified their employee,
and lavished praise on him.  Naturally, company"B" was impressed, so they 
managed to hire him away from company "A".  Shortly after joining company B,
he has a heart attack, and after an extensive recovery, he returns to work.
However, he has to continuously go to the doctor for follow-up visits, and
as a result, misses a lot of time from company B.  Company B is naturally 
quite upset that such a great and highly recommended prospect has not
turned out as they expected.  So they fire him.  Now, this highly talented
fellow looked around, and was quite surprised to learn that he was 
continuously being turned down for positions.  After a while, he learned
that company B was giving him bad references.  So the fellow decided to
sue company B for slander.  His argument in court was that although he 
may have indeed been the victim of misfortune due to his heart attack, and
that he was indeed absent from work a lot due to that, that this didn't 
mean that he was not a good worker and not dependable.  Indeed, his prior
history attested to that.  The court ruled in his favor, and awarded him 
$250,000 in damages from company B.  The gist is that companys can't say
bad things about an employee, even though they may have been true to them.
However, the court went on a little further.  They said also that company B
was entitled to sue company A for giving them such a glowing recommendation
of the fellow.  In other words, if a company says a person is great, then
they are responsible for that.  Likewise, if they say a person is bad, then
they are accountable for that as well.  This is why companies pretty much
only verify employment now.  Even verifying salary can potentially get them
into trouble.  "He had a high salary, so he must have been good..."  In the
state of North Carolina, this law is referred to as the "Blackball statutes".
I hope this clarifys your question, Frank.	--Keith


Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc,talk.politics.misc