Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doa Ana County Essay

Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doa Ana County - analyze ExampleThis make Herrera resign from his work in order to evade the disciplinary action. After a few days, the supervisor wrote a letter on behalf of Herrera to the MVH revealing that Herrera was an excellent worker arguing that he was confident that other prospective employees will notice (Walsh (2010, p. 148). Another supervisor of the Detention Centre made some verbal references that praised Herrera as a good worker who will contribute to effective institution performance. This made the plaintiff, the third party in this case to sue the Detention County for negligent misinterpretations of providing misleading information. This misinformation was provided by Mochen and Steele, employees at the Detention Center, which enabled Herrera to be employed again at the MVH. This legal issue was seen as a threat to employee thus the plaintiff to be assaulted hence sorted to accuse the board of county commissioners of D ona Ana County.The court concludes that Dona Ana countrified deserves to be accountable for negligent referral (misinterpretation) due to positive references. When Herrera got a position as mental wellness technician, he was allegedly accused of sex assault by the plaintiff and physically abused female person patients. In case an organization provides misleading references that can contribute to harm of employees in the new job, the jurisdictions subscribe the right to sue that organization for negligent referral. According to Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto (2004), the court of appeal has the right to judge Steele and Mochen for not taking into considerations the harm caused to the third party and the risk that may be encountered in the end. The government has laws that shelter all employees and the third parties in an organization from any harm imposed upon them. The US departments of Labor and its divisions put one over varied laws, which can shield third parties or employees in the workplace. Cases of negligent or a misinterpretation of any information provided