By: Deborah

Deborah — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:25:15 +0000

I absolutely agree with the court’s decision in this case. I’ve always been kind of on the fence with what information should or should not, conscienably be provided in a reference check, particularly as it relates to something that could endanger other people. It’s completely understandable that many employers generally disclose the bare minimum in order to avoid legal hassles. But, every once in a while there is something so important that you could be jeopardizing someone’s life or livelihood by not being forthcoming (such as this case). I believe there really should be some exceptions to the “mindset rule” of minimal disclosure. For me it’s a matter of conscience. In spite of knowing that disclosure of critical facts could result in a law suit I believe it should be done when non-disclosure could result in the loss of life. It’s sad that people have become so fearful of lawsuits that they sometimes look the other way instead of doing what’s right. The bottom line is that I applaud the judge for recognizing that the past employer’s behavior was far worse than lack of disclosure. This employer deliberately endangered people’s lives by “lying by ommission” and by misleading the new employer with a purely positive performance reference. There’s simply no excuse for this.

Comments on: Positive reference gets company sued

By: Deborah