> They didn't run a background check.

I also had read they didn't run a background check beforehand. Upon a closer read, however, it turns out that Charter did conduct actually run the background check (from the article):

>> Holden's pre-employment criminal background check "showed no arrests, convictions, or other criminal behavior."

> I'm a fan of hiring ex-felons and giving people second chances, but it seems they had reason enough to be concerned about this guy.

To be clear, Holden was not an ex-felon when Charter hired him. From that perspective, this might have been Holden's first or second chance. What the plaintiffs argue is that Charter did not verify employment history and if they had done so, they should have known not to hire Holden. In this article (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/06/jury-holds-chart...), it appears that Holden had previously been fired for "forgery, falsifying documents and harassment of fellow employees."

So, my counter-factual question: suppose they had verified his employment history and knew this -- should Charter have not hired Holden? Would it be reasonable for any company to hire Holden? If not, is there any chance for Holden to productively rejoin society?

If Charter had verified Holden's employment history, it would have been entirely reasonable for them to have not hired Holden. However, I think it would be reasonable for a company to decide to take a chance on hiring such a person. Keep in mind that the criminal background check did not turn anything up, so Holden was not convicted in a court of law.

However, this judgment against Charter (putting aside Charter's forging of a legal document) makes the risk of hiring an employee very, very high: if an employee goes berserk on company time, then the company can be liable for over a billion dollars? This seems like it would have a chilling effect on the hiring of ex-felons and those with mental health issues.

> In the days before Thomas' murder, Holden made 'outcries' to supervisors about personal and financial issues related to a divorce that left him without money or a place to stay, and he cried in a meeting with his supervisor during which he said he was 'not OK,' according to attorneys for Thomas' family. They said that immediately after being denied money, he began scamming elderly female Spectrum cable customers by stealing their credit cards and checks."

This does complicate the case, but would Charter have had a reasonable opportunity to have prevented this? Essentially, Holden appears to have had a clean background check, and he asked for money from his supervisors. Seems reasonable for his supervisors to have declined giving him money. Then what? Was Charter supposed to fire Holden for asking for money and being emotionally distraught? That does not seem reasonable. The plaintiffs might argue that Charter should have placed Holden on some sort of leave, but having a policy for paid leave seems to leave companies vulnerable to abuse while having a policy for unpaid leave seems cruel. Once Charter found out about these behaviors, it makes sense for Charter to have denied him additional opportunities, but it sounds like the murder happened early on.

In summary, we tend to dislike ISPs for various reasons, and perhaps some of us are not troubled by a company like Charter being liable for such a large amount. I am concerned, however, that a judgment like this will have a chilling effect on the hiring of certain groups of people.