Legal and human resource experts have concluded that employers could be deemed legally responsible for a vaster range of employee behaviours than originally thought. This ideology comes after a Supreme Court ruling that a supermarket firm was accountable for one of its employees attacking a member of the public.
A five-judge panel found that Morrisons was liable for the behaviour of Amjid Kahn, an employee who punched and kicked a man (A Mohamud).
Mohamud went to the petrol station on the morning of March 15th, 2008 to find out if it was possible to print some documents off of a USB stick. Transcripts reveal that Kahn replied with foul language to which Mohamud protested. Kahn used racist and threatening language and eventually followed the customer to his car, where he opened the front passenger door, continued yelling and eventually launched into a physical attack.
Prior to going to the Supreme Court, this case was tried twice including once by a Court of Appeals. Both times, the court dismissed the claim. It was dismissed because the court felt it failed the “close connection” test. In case law, this test meant that there needed to be a closer link between the misconduct of the employee and the nature of the employment for any kind of vicarious liability to be established.
Unfortunately for Morrisons, the Supreme Court felt a connection did exist because the man attacked was a customer. Ultimately, according to the court, the employer trusted him with the position and they should be held just as accountable for the abuse that ensued.
One HR expert, Martin Pratt a partner in the employment law team at a legal firm, said the court’s decision “massively increased employers’ potential liability for their employees’ actions”.
According to Pratt, prior to this case an employer would only have been liable for an assault like this one if it were done while an employee was performing a duty directly related to the employment position. Ultimately, this ruling deems that a company could be liable for any person in a customer-facing role.
Human resource managers will have to consider increasing the amount of training employees get before being placed by themselves and consider more rigorous background checks. It will have to be crystal clear what is and what is not accepted in the workplace.
Damages in this case are still to be decided. Morrisons released a statement saying they were appalled when the incident was first reported and did offer a settlement, which was refused.
