DBSTalk Forum banner
21 - 40 of 41 Posts

·
New Member
Joined
·
1,359 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
Did you see this?

The headline itself contradicts your claim. The story also gives more detail about the crime. (The murderer went to the house in his work vehicle the day after install and killed the victim when he was discovered stealing credit cards. The company says the criminal background check "showed no arrests, convictions or other criminal behavior". "Nor did anything in Mr. Holden’s performance after he was hired suggest he was capable of the crime he committed, including more than 1,000 completed service calls with zero customer complaints about his behavior.”
:unsure::rolleyes: wonders why no criminal activity showed up. maybe it was a first offence
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
The robbery may have been his first attempt or it may have been a case where he simply had not been caught. There was no mention of any previous victims (robbery) once it was discovered he was capable of crime by his performance.

("Oh yeah, he did my install and my credit card was missing and use was seen a couple of days later. I just didn't blame it on him." type of stories that should have come out.)

Reading the article, I do not believe he intended to enter the house and kill the victim. The article stated he intended to steal the cards she conveniently kept in a kitchen drawer and was caught in the act. Perhaps his previous 1000 installs didn't offer such a soft target (drawer full of credit cards).

The biggest indicator of trouble was not something that would show up on a background report. He openly talked to other people about needing money. That describes a lot of people.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,560 Posts
The unintentional consequence of this is spectrum will fire their installers and use more contractors instead
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
I doubt that they will change any business practice unless they find (internally) that they did something wrong.
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
25,475 Posts
The headline itself contradicts your claim.
As the insurance company has agency over things such as this, the headline could be misleading in terms of who will actually file the appeal.
The company says the criminal background check "showed no arrests, convictions or other criminal behavior". "Nor did anything in Mr. Holden’s performance after he was hired suggest he was capable of the crime he committed, including more than 1,000 completed service calls with zero customer complaints about his behavior.”
Apparently some party that hasn't been identified publicly suggested to someone at Spectrum that Mr. Holden was trouble and that's what the case seems to hinge on. It sounds like the background checks didn't contemplate/validate this hearsay.
 

·
New Member
Joined
·
2 Posts
It was necessary punishment for the company - they are liable for screening own employees !
Try to imagine - if she was your grandma ..
This wasn’t a case of the company not screening their perspective employees. They did all the necessary checks and his background was clean. Indications are that he was an exemplary technician. This isn’t on Spectrum totally, this is on the individual who made a poor judgement and committed the most immoral of all offenses. And although he committed this murder off the clock, his introduction to the victim came through Spectrum, so there is some culpability there. This financial punishment will undoubtedly be deemed too excessive at the next phase.
 

·
Beware the Attack Basset
Joined
·
25,475 Posts
They did all the necessary checks and his background was clean.
The plaintiff's attorneys seem to have convinced the jury that Spectrum was given some disturbing information about Mr. Holden that they didn't act on and that appears to be what swung the findings.
 

·
New Member
Joined
·
5 Posts
You underestimate the power of new liability. a $7 BILLION judgment (even if they likely will never pay that much) will cause a MASSIVE reevaluation of how they do things. Even the dumbest company in the world would stop and think after this.

I doubt that they will change any business practice unless they find (internally) that they did something wrong.
 

·
New Member
Joined
·
5 Posts
$7 Billion... sigh. While in this case, there is a very real victim, this pushes the absurdity of lawsuit awards beyond that of a fool putting a coffee cup from McDonalds between her legs and then suing because she squeezed the cup and got hot coffee on her legs...

Armchair quarterback and all, because we don't have all the evidence and arguments before us... but I would really like to know how Spectrum could have prevented this. They did the usual background checks (apparently no hits), What else were they to do? Time and again, course have not held companies responsible for employee actions when not working for the company.

I saw a FedEx shirt at a Goodwill a couple years ago... if someone bought that shirt, then put it on and robbed someone - would FedEx be legally liable? I don't think that is much more of an extension in the "logic".
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
He was driving a company vehicle, but was NOT working for Spectrum when he entered the home to steal the credit cards (and when caught in the act) kill the homeowner. (He worked at the house the day before, not the day of the robbery turned murder.)
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
5,477 Posts
He was driving a company vehicle, but was NOT working for Spectrum when he entered the home to steal the credit cards (and when caught in the act) kill the homeowner. (He worked at the house the day before, not the day of the robbery turned murder.
so when any worker brakes an rule they can't just say NOT working for them at the time and get out of it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
so when any worker brakes an rule they can't just say NOT working for them at the time and get out of it.
No. In this case the employee had no work related reason to be at that house. He returned on his own time to commit a crime and his employer had no reason for him to be there. It would be like suing your employer if you decided to kill someone in a road rage incident. Sure, your employer should have seen the warning signs and had you committed or medicated before your rage reached that level - but is your employer truly responsible for your actions 24x7x365? If you punched someone in a bar would your employer be responsible (unless a superior employee was present and told you to hit someone)?

Being responsible for an employees actions while they are at work is one thing. Being responsible for that employees action's 24x7x365 is ridiculous.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
5,477 Posts
No. In this case the employee had no work related reason to be at that house. He returned on his own time to commit a crime and his employer had no reason for him to be there. It would be like suing your employer if you decided to kill someone in a road rage incident. Sure, your employer should have seen the warning signs and had you committed or medicated before your rage reached that level - but is your employer truly responsible for your actions 24x7x365? If you punched someone in a bar would your employer be responsible (unless a superior employee was present and told you to hit someone)?
really?
If you punched someone in a bar would your employer be responsible maybe not but if say
If you punched someone in a bar the day after working an service call at the same bar for your employer then it's not the same thing.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,899 Posts
Your suggestion was that an employee could magically stop being an employee while on the job simply by breaking a rule. That is the stupidity I was responding to. In the bar example your suggestion is that an employee could be installing at a bar and the moment he decides to hit someone the company would claim that they were no longer responsible for the employee's presence or actions. That isn't the situation that happened in Texas.

If you are going to hold the company responsible for the employee's action the day after how about the week after? A month after? That is where the claim gets stupid again. If they had terminated the employee due to the "concerns" that the victim's lawyer claims were obvious would that have cleared the cable company of responsibility or would that have served as a trigger for the employee to attack one of the 1000 other customers he served?

What would be the company's options if they had followed the victim's lawyer's advice and terminated the employee? Report the employee to the police? (Hey, we got this guy with money problems - we are firing him - keep an eye on him, will ya?) Kill him? That would have prevented him from robbing the victim.

There has to be a boundary where the employer is no longer responsible for their employee's actions. Somehow I don't believe we will find that boundary in this thread.
 

·
Legend
Joined
·
440 Posts
$7 Billion... sigh. While in this case, there is a very real victim, this pushes the absurdity of lawsuit awards beyond that of a fool putting a coffee cup from McDonalds between her legs and then suing because she squeezed the cup and got hot coffee on her legs...

Armchair quarterback and all, because we don't have all the evidence and arguments before us... but I would really like to know how Spectrum could have prevented this. They did the usual background checks (apparently no hits), What else were they to do? Time and again, course have not held companies responsible for employee actions when not working for the company.

I saw a FedEx shirt at a Goodwill a couple years ago... if someone bought that shirt, then put it on and robbed someone - would FedEx be legally liable? I don't think that is much more of an extension in the "logic".
You really need to know about the McDonalds hot coffee story, not what was paid for by McDonalds to feed lies to the news....Had McDonald's had 1 once of empathy and sympathy for the elderly lady it never would of blown up in their faces...
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
2,703 Posts
If you are going to hold the company responsible for the employee's action the day after how about the week after? A month after? That is where the claim gets stupid again. If they had terminated the employee due to the "concerns" that the victim's lawyer claims were obvious would that have cleared the cable company of responsibility or would that have served as a trigger for the employee to attack one of the 1000 other customers he served?
I think that there is an important piece of the story that's being missed here. According to this press release (which comes from the plaintiff's lawyers, so should be looked upon with a grain of salt) and this news story, the woman was still having problems with her equipment and had called back "he managed to learn that Ms. Thomas had reported that she was still having problems with her service and used his company key card to enter a Charter Spectrum secured vehicle lot and drove his Charter Spectrum van to her house. Once inside, while fixing her fax machine, the victim, Ms. Thomas, caught the field tech stealing her credit cards from her purse. The Charter Spectrum field tech, Roy Holden, then brutally stabbed the 83-year-old customer with a utility knife supplied by Charter Spectrum and went on a spending spree with her credit cards." So for all intents and purposes, regardless of whether he was "off duty" he was at the victims home as a representative of Charter.

It also appears that the size of the award could have been due to Charter's actions following the murder.

"Jurors agreed that after Ms. Thomas' grieving family filed a lawsuit, Charter Spectrum attorneys used a forged document to try to force the lawsuit into a closed-door arbitration where the results would have been secret and damages for the murder would have been limited to the amount of Ms. Thomas's final bill. The jury found that Charter Spectrum committed forgery beyond a reasonable doubt, conduct that constitutes a first-degree felony under Texas law."
 
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
Top