- Email: [email protected]
Employment References—Giving and Receiving
from the association
ETHICS IN ACTION
Employment References—Giving and Receiving Freda M. Zackin, JD
W
hen employers are asked to provide a reference for a current or former employee, most aim to present a fair picture of the employee’s performance without unduly interfering with the person’s prospects for future jobs. When the employee has performed well, the reference is easy to complete. When the performance was weak or unsatisfactory, many managers struggle to find a way to tell the truth without provoking a lawsuit by the subject of the reference. The result can be an incomplete report, by which the manager may hope to convey a negative message without provoking legal action. When the shoe is on the other foot, managers who seek references for prospective hires want as much accurate information as possible. The same dilemma often faces educators asked by students to support their candidacy for jobs. At what point does telling the truth in a reference letter require telling the “whole” truth? Where is the ethical and legal balance between wanting to receive detailed information and wanting to give as little information as possible to avoid litigation? CASE SCENARIO ONE—GIVING REFERENCES Hospital A hired a dietary worker, Mr G, after obtaining the usual application and several references from other health care facilities at which Mr G had worked. The references were all positive, including remarks noting Mr G’s “genuine concern” for patients F. M. Zackin is associate dean for Academic and Student Services, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, School of Health Related Professions, Newark. 0002-8223/08/10806-0020$34.00/0 doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.04.032
and his “outstanding rapport” with everyone and stating, “I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend Mr G for any position!” These recommendations were made despite knowledge by the former employers of Mr G’s prior sexual misconduct with female patients. Sometime after being hired by Hospital A, Mr G molested a patient in her room (1). Assuming that the managers of the health care facilities who wrote the recommendations told the truth in the letters of reference, should they be liable for the damage caused by omitting information about the employee’s past misconduct? Are they required by law or the standards of the profession to tell the “whole” truth? CASE SCENARIO TWO—HIRING A woman brought her 13-year-old daughter for consultation with a dietitian at Good Life Community Health Center. While waiting for the appointment, the mother was robbed and accidentally shot by a 19-year-old receptionist. The receptionist had been hired by Good Life through an employment program for former juvenile offenders. Good Life knew that the receptionist had served time in juvenile facilities for illegal gun possession. Should Good Life have used greater caution when employing individuals through the juvenile offenders program? Should Good Life bear responsibility for the injury because it negligently hired the receptionist? Did Good Life have a duty to inquire about gun ownership or use by its new hires? (2) CODE OF ETHICS Professional health care managers frequently face decisions about what to include in a reference letter and what background information to require of job applicants. The Principles of the American Dietetic Association/
© 2008 by the American Dietetic Association
Commission on Dietetic Registration (ADA/CDR) Code of Ethics for the Profession of Dietetics should inform the professional dietitian’s choices. Principle 1, which requires the practitioner to conduct himself/herself “with honesty, integrity, and fairness,” is the overarching precept. Principles 11, 12, and 19 more specifically address the issues that arise in the employment arena: Principle 11: The dietetics practitioner provides objective evaluations of performance for employees and coworkers, candidates for employment, students, professional association memberships, awards, or scholarships. The dietetics practitioner makes all reasonable effort to avoid bias in any kind of professional evaluation of others. Principle 12: The dietetics practitioner is alert to situations that might cause a conflict of interest or have the appearance of a conflict. The dietetics practitioner provides full disclosure when a real or potential conflict of interest arises. Principle 19: The dietetics practitioner supports and promotes high standards of professional practice. The dietetics practitioner accepts the obligation to protect clients, the public, and the profession by upholding the Code of Ethics for the Profession of Dietetics and by reporting alleged violations of the Code through the defined review process of the American Dietetic Association and its credentialing agency, the Commission on Dietetic Registration (3).
The intent of these principles could not be clearer— be truthful and objective in providing evaluations of performance in order to protect the public and support the standards of the profession. In practice, however, this goal can be difficult to achieve. Avoiding bias in a reference letter may require ignoring powerful forces, such as the possibility that the employee’s future career will be destroyed and the risk that the employee will bring legal action. One could argue that
Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
1053
ETHICS IN ACTION these risks almost always place the reference writer in a conflict of interest, particularly when the employee’s performance was below standard. It is not unreasonable for a manager to feel that telling the truth and protecting the interests of future employers and the public might put the manager and the institution at risk of considerable expense to defend a lawsuit, even if completely unfounded. This concern has stimulated a trend in human resources policies. “Rather than fearing losing, employers fear the legal expenses associated even with lawsuits they successfully defend. . . . Hence, because of the expense involved in defending such suits, many employers follow their lawyers’ advice to adopt a ‘name, rank, and serial number’ policy whereby they will verify only dates worked and positions held” (4). LEGAL ACTIONS—DEFAMATION, MISREPRESENTATION, AND NEGLIGENCE An employee who is aware of a derogatory reference can attempt to recover damages through a legal action for defamation, misrepresentation, interference with economic opportunity, and various forms of discrimination. Although the laws governing these actions differ from state to state, plaintiffs must usually demonstrate that the information given was false or misleading, either intentionally or negligently, and that the representation resulted in damage to the employee’s reputation and/or future career prospects. Since there is no common law duty to provide references at all (5), “. . . employers find themselves in a ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ in which they are rewarded for uncooperativeness” (6). This reaction is common, despite the fact that most states protect employers from liability with a “qualified privilege,” provided their disclosures are in good faith and accurate (7). Litigation is so costly in money and time spent on defense, that avoiding it can become the driving motivation in reference writing. NEGLIGENT HIRING Employers who are reluctant to disclose negative information in references may suffer serious consequences when their fellow professionals adopt
1054
June 2008 Volume 108 Number 6
the same attitude. If a manager hires a person based on a reference with minimal substantive information, he may unknowingly hire an incompetent or even dangerous employee. Some courts have recognized “negligent hiring” as a cause of action, particularly when the employee was hired despite a history of violence (8). Such employers may be liable for injury to others caused by their employees, especially if the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable (9). How much the hiring institution knew and how much investigation it should have done are decisive questions in negligent hiring cases. NEW JERSEY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTING ENHANCEMENT ACT In 2005, following a notorious case of a nurse who was accused of murdering approximately 40 patients in hospitals throughout the state and elsewhere, the New Jersey legislature passed a bill requiring health care facilities to disclose to other requesting health care entities information about an employee’s job performance. This statute broke new ground nationally by establishing specific standards for employment references by health care institutions. The statute requires health care institutions to disclose to each other any information about job performance as it relates to patient care, the reason for the employee’s separation, and the suitability of the employee for re-employment at a health care entity, provided that the information was based on a job evaluation to which the employee had a chance to respond (10). As long as the employer discloses only the information specifically required by the statute and does so in good faith, without malice, the employer will not be liable for civil damages in any action arising out of the disclosure (11). Providing important substantive information in references for health care employees is now a legal duty in New Jersey. Failure to comply can result in penalties (12). WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE TWO CASE STUDIES WERE REAL? Case Scenario One—Giving References The facts of this scenario are similar to a 1997 California case in which the plaintiff was a middle school student
who had been molested by a vice principal of her school. The vice principal had been hired based on glowing recommendations, despite a history of sexual misconduct. The court held that “the writer of the recommendation letter owes a duty not to misrepresent the facts in describing qualifications and character of former employee, if making misrepresentations would present substantial, foreseeable risk of physical injury to third persons.” The decision focused on the misleading statements included in the recommendations, but also found the recommendations to be “. . . deceptively incomplete because defendants knowingly concealed material facts. . . .” (13) Telling less than the “whole truth,” when the facts omitted were important to a reasonable hiring decision, created legal liability. Case Scenario Two—Hiring Facts comparable to this scenario led the New Jersey Supreme Court to recognize a cause of action for negligent hiring, in which an employer could be liable for injuries to third persons if the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable. The employer in this case knew that the receptionist had a history of gun possession and had frequent contact with the public. In cases alleging negligent hiring, liability may be found even when the harm happens accidentally or in situations outside the employee’s job duties (2). Many courts will find employers liable for injuries caused by an employee at the workplace when “reasonable investigation into the background of the employee would have alerted the employer of the danger” (14). CAN AN EMPLOYER PROTECT ITSELF FROM LIABILITY AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND THE PROFESSION AT THE SAME TIME? One way for employers in any state to limit risk while giving truthful and meaningful references is to use the requirements of the New Jersey Health Care Professional Responsibility and Reporting Enhancement Act as guidelines. ●
Assuming no institutional policy that prohibits substantive references, give relevant information that has been included in an employment evaluation that the employee has reviewed and signed.
ETHICS IN ACTION ●
●
●
Include only information to which the employee had an opportunity to respond, with that response taken into consideration (15). Disclose any reports of misconduct that have been made to licensing or law enforcement bodies. The aim should be to ensure that the reference is factual and accurate, and that the employee will not be surprised by disclosure of negative information.
Being scrupulous about creating truthful and complete evaluations is the first step in effectively using this guidance. No system for reference writing can prevent an unhappy employee from filing a lawsuit, but one can reduce the risk and uphold the profession’s ethical standards using the tool of careful evaluations. Understanding that employers are reluctant to give bad news in references, hiring managers often have to work hard to uncover information about an applicant’s background. ● ● ● ●
●
Routine background checks can be conducted. Personal contact with references can be attempted. Academic degrees and employment history can be verified. Applicants can be asked in advance to release reference writers from liability (16). If a reference response contains only a “name, rank, and serial number,” the hiring manager can question whether this kind of limited reference response is required for all reference responses by the facility or is limited only to certain individuals. In either case, personal phone calls to the facility may generate more relevant information.
The more patient contact and ability to do harm a position entails, the greater should be the effort to explore the applicant’s background. CONCLUSION Both giving and receiving references can result in legal liability if harm arises from incomplete or misleading information. In most states, neither employers nor educators have a legal duty to give any reference information; however, providing careful, truthful reference information can contribute to the public welfare,
particularly in the context of hiring for the health professions. Moreover, the ADA Code of Ethics for the Profession of Dietetics requires employers to provide an objective appraisal of former employees. Hiring employers can help to safeguard themselves and the public by thoroughly exploring an applicant’s background and diligently confirming the information contained in reference letters. References 1. Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School Dist., 14 Cal. 4th 1066, 929 P.2d 582 (Cal, 1997). 2. DiCosala v. Kay, 91 N.J. 159, 450 A.2d 508 (N.J., 1982). 3. American Dietetic Association. Code of Ethics for the Profession of Dietetics. American Dietetic Association Web site. www.eatright.org/ cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_8219_ENU_ HTML.htm Accessed June 8, 2007. 4. Ballam DA. Employment references—Speak no evil, hear no evil: A proposal for meaningful reform. Am Bus Law J 2002;39:445, 448. 5. Ashby J. Employment references: Should employers have an affirmative duty to report employee misconduct to inquiring prospective employers? Ariz Law Rev. 2004;46:117, 133. 6. Sayko JD. When employers get ‘something for nothing’: The need to impose a limited obligation to disclose in employment reference situation. Suffolk University Law Rev. 2004;38:123, 126. 7. Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sec. 596. 1977. 8. Kondrasuk JN, Moore HL, Wang H. Negligent hiring: The emerging contributor to workplace violence in the public sector. Public Personnel Management. 2001;30:185. 9. Minuti M. Employer liability under the doctrine of negligent hiring: Suggested methods for avoiding the hiring of dangerous employees. Del J Corp Law. 1988;13:501. 10. N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.2c(a)(2). New Jersey State Legislature Web site. ssl.csg.org/dockets/ 27cycle/2007B/27Bbills/2127b09nj.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2007. 11. N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.2c(c). New Jersey State Legislature Web site. ssl.csg.org/dockets/ 27cycle/2007B/27Bbills/2127b09nj.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2007. 12. N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.2c(d). New Jersey State Legislature Web site. ssl.csg.org/dockets/ 27cycle/2007B/27Bbills/2127b09nj.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2007. 13. Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School Dist., 14 Cal. 4th 1066, 929 P.2d 582, 593. (Cal, 1997). 14. Minuti M. Employer liability under the doctrine of negligent hiring: Suggested methods for avoiding the hiring of dangerous employees. Del J Corp Law. 1988;13:501-502. 15. N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.2c(b), ssl.csg.org/dockets/ 27cycle/2007B/27Bbills/2127b09nj.pdf. 16. Paetzold RL, Willborn SL. Employer rationality and the demise of employment references. Am Bus Law J. 1992;30:123, 133.
June 2008 ● Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
1055
ETHICS IN ACTION
Employment References—Giving and Receiving Freda M. Zackin, JD
W
hen employers are asked to provide a reference for a current or former employee, most aim to present a fair picture of the employee’s performance without unduly interfering with the person’s prospects for future jobs. When the employee has performed well, the reference is easy to complete. When the performance was weak or unsatisfactory, many managers struggle to find a way to tell the truth without provoking a lawsuit by the subject of the reference. The result can be an incomplete report, by which the manager may hope to convey a negative message without provoking legal action. When the shoe is on the other foot, managers who seek references for prospective hires want as much accurate information as possible. The same dilemma often faces educators asked by students to support their candidacy for jobs. At what point does telling the truth in a reference letter require telling the “whole” truth? Where is the ethical and legal balance between wanting to receive detailed information and wanting to give as little information as possible to avoid litigation? CASE SCENARIO ONE—GIVING REFERENCES Hospital A hired a dietary worker, Mr G, after obtaining the usual application and several references from other health care facilities at which Mr G had worked. The references were all positive, including remarks noting Mr G’s “genuine concern” for patients F. M. Zackin is associate dean for Academic and Student Services, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, School of Health Related Professions, Newark. 0002-8223/08/10806-0020$34.00/0 doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2008.04.032
and his “outstanding rapport” with everyone and stating, “I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend Mr G for any position!” These recommendations were made despite knowledge by the former employers of Mr G’s prior sexual misconduct with female patients. Sometime after being hired by Hospital A, Mr G molested a patient in her room (1). Assuming that the managers of the health care facilities who wrote the recommendations told the truth in the letters of reference, should they be liable for the damage caused by omitting information about the employee’s past misconduct? Are they required by law or the standards of the profession to tell the “whole” truth? CASE SCENARIO TWO—HIRING A woman brought her 13-year-old daughter for consultation with a dietitian at Good Life Community Health Center. While waiting for the appointment, the mother was robbed and accidentally shot by a 19-year-old receptionist. The receptionist had been hired by Good Life through an employment program for former juvenile offenders. Good Life knew that the receptionist had served time in juvenile facilities for illegal gun possession. Should Good Life have used greater caution when employing individuals through the juvenile offenders program? Should Good Life bear responsibility for the injury because it negligently hired the receptionist? Did Good Life have a duty to inquire about gun ownership or use by its new hires? (2) CODE OF ETHICS Professional health care managers frequently face decisions about what to include in a reference letter and what background information to require of job applicants. The Principles of the American Dietetic Association/
© 2008 by the American Dietetic Association
Commission on Dietetic Registration (ADA/CDR) Code of Ethics for the Profession of Dietetics should inform the professional dietitian’s choices. Principle 1, which requires the practitioner to conduct himself/herself “with honesty, integrity, and fairness,” is the overarching precept. Principles 11, 12, and 19 more specifically address the issues that arise in the employment arena: Principle 11: The dietetics practitioner provides objective evaluations of performance for employees and coworkers, candidates for employment, students, professional association memberships, awards, or scholarships. The dietetics practitioner makes all reasonable effort to avoid bias in any kind of professional evaluation of others. Principle 12: The dietetics practitioner is alert to situations that might cause a conflict of interest or have the appearance of a conflict. The dietetics practitioner provides full disclosure when a real or potential conflict of interest arises. Principle 19: The dietetics practitioner supports and promotes high standards of professional practice. The dietetics practitioner accepts the obligation to protect clients, the public, and the profession by upholding the Code of Ethics for the Profession of Dietetics and by reporting alleged violations of the Code through the defined review process of the American Dietetic Association and its credentialing agency, the Commission on Dietetic Registration (3).
The intent of these principles could not be clearer— be truthful and objective in providing evaluations of performance in order to protect the public and support the standards of the profession. In practice, however, this goal can be difficult to achieve. Avoiding bias in a reference letter may require ignoring powerful forces, such as the possibility that the employee’s future career will be destroyed and the risk that the employee will bring legal action. One could argue that
Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
1053
ETHICS IN ACTION these risks almost always place the reference writer in a conflict of interest, particularly when the employee’s performance was below standard. It is not unreasonable for a manager to feel that telling the truth and protecting the interests of future employers and the public might put the manager and the institution at risk of considerable expense to defend a lawsuit, even if completely unfounded. This concern has stimulated a trend in human resources policies. “Rather than fearing losing, employers fear the legal expenses associated even with lawsuits they successfully defend. . . . Hence, because of the expense involved in defending such suits, many employers follow their lawyers’ advice to adopt a ‘name, rank, and serial number’ policy whereby they will verify only dates worked and positions held” (4). LEGAL ACTIONS—DEFAMATION, MISREPRESENTATION, AND NEGLIGENCE An employee who is aware of a derogatory reference can attempt to recover damages through a legal action for defamation, misrepresentation, interference with economic opportunity, and various forms of discrimination. Although the laws governing these actions differ from state to state, plaintiffs must usually demonstrate that the information given was false or misleading, either intentionally or negligently, and that the representation resulted in damage to the employee’s reputation and/or future career prospects. Since there is no common law duty to provide references at all (5), “. . . employers find themselves in a ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ in which they are rewarded for uncooperativeness” (6). This reaction is common, despite the fact that most states protect employers from liability with a “qualified privilege,” provided their disclosures are in good faith and accurate (7). Litigation is so costly in money and time spent on defense, that avoiding it can become the driving motivation in reference writing. NEGLIGENT HIRING Employers who are reluctant to disclose negative information in references may suffer serious consequences when their fellow professionals adopt
1054
June 2008 Volume 108 Number 6
the same attitude. If a manager hires a person based on a reference with minimal substantive information, he may unknowingly hire an incompetent or even dangerous employee. Some courts have recognized “negligent hiring” as a cause of action, particularly when the employee was hired despite a history of violence (8). Such employers may be liable for injury to others caused by their employees, especially if the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable (9). How much the hiring institution knew and how much investigation it should have done are decisive questions in negligent hiring cases. NEW JERSEY HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND REPORTING ENHANCEMENT ACT In 2005, following a notorious case of a nurse who was accused of murdering approximately 40 patients in hospitals throughout the state and elsewhere, the New Jersey legislature passed a bill requiring health care facilities to disclose to other requesting health care entities information about an employee’s job performance. This statute broke new ground nationally by establishing specific standards for employment references by health care institutions. The statute requires health care institutions to disclose to each other any information about job performance as it relates to patient care, the reason for the employee’s separation, and the suitability of the employee for re-employment at a health care entity, provided that the information was based on a job evaluation to which the employee had a chance to respond (10). As long as the employer discloses only the information specifically required by the statute and does so in good faith, without malice, the employer will not be liable for civil damages in any action arising out of the disclosure (11). Providing important substantive information in references for health care employees is now a legal duty in New Jersey. Failure to comply can result in penalties (12). WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE TWO CASE STUDIES WERE REAL? Case Scenario One—Giving References The facts of this scenario are similar to a 1997 California case in which the plaintiff was a middle school student
who had been molested by a vice principal of her school. The vice principal had been hired based on glowing recommendations, despite a history of sexual misconduct. The court held that “the writer of the recommendation letter owes a duty not to misrepresent the facts in describing qualifications and character of former employee, if making misrepresentations would present substantial, foreseeable risk of physical injury to third persons.” The decision focused on the misleading statements included in the recommendations, but also found the recommendations to be “. . . deceptively incomplete because defendants knowingly concealed material facts. . . .” (13) Telling less than the “whole truth,” when the facts omitted were important to a reasonable hiring decision, created legal liability. Case Scenario Two—Hiring Facts comparable to this scenario led the New Jersey Supreme Court to recognize a cause of action for negligent hiring, in which an employer could be liable for injuries to third persons if the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable. The employer in this case knew that the receptionist had a history of gun possession and had frequent contact with the public. In cases alleging negligent hiring, liability may be found even when the harm happens accidentally or in situations outside the employee’s job duties (2). Many courts will find employers liable for injuries caused by an employee at the workplace when “reasonable investigation into the background of the employee would have alerted the employer of the danger” (14). CAN AN EMPLOYER PROTECT ITSELF FROM LIABILITY AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND THE PROFESSION AT THE SAME TIME? One way for employers in any state to limit risk while giving truthful and meaningful references is to use the requirements of the New Jersey Health Care Professional Responsibility and Reporting Enhancement Act as guidelines. ●
Assuming no institutional policy that prohibits substantive references, give relevant information that has been included in an employment evaluation that the employee has reviewed and signed.
ETHICS IN ACTION ●
●
●
Include only information to which the employee had an opportunity to respond, with that response taken into consideration (15). Disclose any reports of misconduct that have been made to licensing or law enforcement bodies. The aim should be to ensure that the reference is factual and accurate, and that the employee will not be surprised by disclosure of negative information.
Being scrupulous about creating truthful and complete evaluations is the first step in effectively using this guidance. No system for reference writing can prevent an unhappy employee from filing a lawsuit, but one can reduce the risk and uphold the profession’s ethical standards using the tool of careful evaluations. Understanding that employers are reluctant to give bad news in references, hiring managers often have to work hard to uncover information about an applicant’s background. ● ● ● ●
●
Routine background checks can be conducted. Personal contact with references can be attempted. Academic degrees and employment history can be verified. Applicants can be asked in advance to release reference writers from liability (16). If a reference response contains only a “name, rank, and serial number,” the hiring manager can question whether this kind of limited reference response is required for all reference responses by the facility or is limited only to certain individuals. In either case, personal phone calls to the facility may generate more relevant information.
The more patient contact and ability to do harm a position entails, the greater should be the effort to explore the applicant’s background. CONCLUSION Both giving and receiving references can result in legal liability if harm arises from incomplete or misleading information. In most states, neither employers nor educators have a legal duty to give any reference information; however, providing careful, truthful reference information can contribute to the public welfare,
particularly in the context of hiring for the health professions. Moreover, the ADA Code of Ethics for the Profession of Dietetics requires employers to provide an objective appraisal of former employees. Hiring employers can help to safeguard themselves and the public by thoroughly exploring an applicant’s background and diligently confirming the information contained in reference letters. References 1. Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School Dist., 14 Cal. 4th 1066, 929 P.2d 582 (Cal, 1997). 2. DiCosala v. Kay, 91 N.J. 159, 450 A.2d 508 (N.J., 1982). 3. American Dietetic Association. Code of Ethics for the Profession of Dietetics. American Dietetic Association Web site. www.eatright.org/ cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_8219_ENU_ HTML.htm Accessed June 8, 2007. 4. Ballam DA. Employment references—Speak no evil, hear no evil: A proposal for meaningful reform. Am Bus Law J 2002;39:445, 448. 5. Ashby J. Employment references: Should employers have an affirmative duty to report employee misconduct to inquiring prospective employers? Ariz Law Rev. 2004;46:117, 133. 6. Sayko JD. When employers get ‘something for nothing’: The need to impose a limited obligation to disclose in employment reference situation. Suffolk University Law Rev. 2004;38:123, 126. 7. Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sec. 596. 1977. 8. Kondrasuk JN, Moore HL, Wang H. Negligent hiring: The emerging contributor to workplace violence in the public sector. Public Personnel Management. 2001;30:185. 9. Minuti M. Employer liability under the doctrine of negligent hiring: Suggested methods for avoiding the hiring of dangerous employees. Del J Corp Law. 1988;13:501. 10. N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.2c(a)(2). New Jersey State Legislature Web site. ssl.csg.org/dockets/ 27cycle/2007B/27Bbills/2127b09nj.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2007. 11. N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.2c(c). New Jersey State Legislature Web site. ssl.csg.org/dockets/ 27cycle/2007B/27Bbills/2127b09nj.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2007. 12. N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.2c(d). New Jersey State Legislature Web site. ssl.csg.org/dockets/ 27cycle/2007B/27Bbills/2127b09nj.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2007. 13. Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School Dist., 14 Cal. 4th 1066, 929 P.2d 582, 593. (Cal, 1997). 14. Minuti M. Employer liability under the doctrine of negligent hiring: Suggested methods for avoiding the hiring of dangerous employees. Del J Corp Law. 1988;13:501-502. 15. N.J.S.A. 26:2H-12.2c(b), ssl.csg.org/dockets/ 27cycle/2007B/27Bbills/2127b09nj.pdf. 16. Paetzold RL, Willborn SL. Employer rationality and the demise of employment references. Am Bus Law J. 1992;30:123, 133.
June 2008 ● Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION
1055