legal question

[schmosef]

It's about this: link.

There is no doubt that this is a terrible story.

Is Comcast really at fault though?

Wouldn't the tech have the right to presumption of innocence here?

Isn't it the "system", which failed to remand him, place him under house arrest, or at least bar him from working with the public, that is really to blame?

[Jammrock]

Technically this lawsuit is without merit. If the suspect had no previous criminal record, was performing his job duties, etc, the by law he would be considered "innocent until proven guilty." Meaning Comcast had no reason to fire him without evidence from internal incidents that he was a violent person.

But I'm not a lawyer. And knowing the US inJustice system, the fiance will probably walk away with several million.

[Dr Mordrid]

Companies that send people into the homes of their customers have special responsibilities as regards the safety of their customers during such visits.

As such Comcast should have at the very least put him on "house duty" (working only in Comcast buildings) until the situation had been resolved.

That's the way it is for the vast majority of municipal & state employees, and the case could be made that those providing public utility services in the home should be the same.

ex: when a cop is involved in a shooting most departments put them on desk duty until the Shooting Review Board decides if their actions were appropriate.

[schmosef]

Companies that send people into the homes of their customers have special responsibilities as regards the safety of their customers during such visits.

As such Comcast should have at the very least put him on "house duty" (working only in Comcast buildings) until the situation had been resolved.

I completely agree that this is what they should have done from a customer service perspective. But is it a legal obligation as well?

[Dr Mordrid]

In a US civil court the jury decides that using the "reasonable person" standard; "would a reasonable (person/company) take 'x' action?" if they had knowledge of his being under investigation.

In this case I would find that a reasonable company would not expose their customers to a potentially dangerous person. Some might argue that it rises to a duty in their role as a corporate citizen.

In either case companies have been held responsible for the actions of their employees in such circumstances, so there is definitely precedent.

Also: the standard in civil court is "preponderance of the evidence", meaning 51% certainty. This differs from a criminal courts "beyond a shadow of a doubt", meaning 99% certainty.

[ND66]

Companies that send people into the homes of their customers have special responsibilities as regards the safety of their customers during such visits.

100% correct!

[Brian Ellis]

It would appear the Comcast had no say in the matter, judging from the newspaper report.

who was employed by a Comcast subcontractor

A main contractor (ie Comcast) has no jurisdiction over whom a subcontractor employs, therefore cannot rule on whether the person in question was fit for the job or not. The only thing that Comcast could do was to include a clause in the subcontractor's contract to the effect that the latter employed persons of integrity. If the subcontractor was then negligent (which would be difficult to prove on the presumption of innocence), then Comcast's only recourse would be to terminate the contract for just motives.

In fact, I find the newspaper disgusting for bringing Comcast's name into it; if they had brought the subcontractor's name, that would have been understandable. However, I have little doubt that Comcast's name makes better headlines than a small, probably unknown, subcontractor's.

Bad journalism

[cjolley]

...
A main contractor (ie Comcast) has no jurisdiction over whom a subcontractor employs...

Not having seen their contract, I don't see how you can know that.
And given what a huge company Comcast is, I think it is highly likely that there was a clause in the contract giving them veto power over the subcontractor's field employees.
Probably even for things as simple as appearance, let alone murder charges.

Even the police department routinely removes officers from public duties after a shooting, until an investigation is completed.

[Brian Ellis]

And given what a huge company Comcast is, I think it is highly likely that there was a clause in the contract giving them veto power over the subcontractor's field employees.
Probably even for things as simple as appearance, let alone murder charges.

I, as CEO of my old company, have been contractor and subcontractor at different times, even to governments.

I have never seen a clause giving veto power to sub-contractors employees. As a sub-contractor I would never have accepted such a clause as being outside interference in the management of my company. In the extreme, if used wilfully, such a clause could drive a company into bankruptcy. When sub-contracting out work, which I did on a regular basis, I relied on the inherent integrity of my partner to do the work as I wished but I would never, in my wildest dreams, have thought about interfering in the way they were managed.

[cjolley]

Imagine you are Comcast.
You are using contractors mainly to get out of having to pay employees benefits, and workman's comp.
A subcontractor who sends representatives into people's houses on your behalf and direction starts hiring scary biker types.
YOU get a lot of complaints and cancellations.
Remember while you have contracted with the subcontractor, your customers have not.
So, you ask the contractor to stop doing it.
They refuse.
You terminate the contract.
Oh? On what grounds? Have any of the complaints been about the work that was done?
Having left out any control over what types of people were sent on your behalf, you have no grounds.

Your legal department would deserve mass firings if they got you into that situation.

The perpetrator was sent to the victim's house at the direction of and on behalf of, Comcast.
They simply are not going to escape having some responsibility.

[Dr Mordrid]

In most cases claiming no responsibility because you hired a subcontractor gets you nowhere. You still have original responsibility because the customer contracted with you for the service and the contractor is acting as your agent. That makes you responsible for everything service related that happens in their home.

[cjolley]

You know you are in trouble if you have Doc and me agreeing 100% about something.