This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: security guard; indeed, the fact that both Apollo representatives testified that they
would not have hired Brown had they known of his prior arrests belies such a position.
Id. at 1251. Significantly, the court further pointed out that both the nature and
disposition of the arrest charges would have an important bearing on the question of
unfitness and on the extent of the employer's misconduct. The court further addressed,
and rejected, a contention as to the unavailability of the arrest records to the employer.
No issue of unavailability is present in the case before us, with the exception of the
juvenile records, because the evidence here established both the availability and
insignificant expense involved in obtaining the employee's adult arrest and conviction
records from the police, sheriffs' offices, or the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49 n8 Of further significance is the fact that the Easley court, in rejecting the contention
made in oral argument that it is an unfair labor practice under Illinois law to include a
question on an application form as to prior arrests, observed that no case law cited by the
employer provides that arrests discovered by other means cannot be considered. 387
N.E.2d at 1251.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**49]
We have not overlooked the holding in Florida decisions that there is no requirement, as a
matter of law, that the employer check with law enforcement agencies concerning a
prospective employee's criminal record. Williams, 386 So.2d at 1240; Garcia v. Duffy,
492 So.2d at 441. As we view it, the rule is not one of admissibility of evidence but,
rather, is a rule [*761] that specific conduct on the part of the employer, namely, the
failure to check with law enforcement agencies concerning criminal records cannot be
considered in and of itself, as establishing negligence as a matter of law. The rule does
not mean, as apparently argued by appellant, that the duty of reasonable inquiry under no
circumstances can be said to encompass an investigation of the criminal record of an
employee. Furthermore, the rule itself is not abs...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.
- Spring '08