Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
In Willful Disregard Of The Employment Security Act: Culpability And The Determination Of Disqualifying Misconduct By The Courts, James Levy
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment argues that the most appropriate test for applying the statutory definition of misconduct an objective test based on knowing disregard of the employer's interests by the employee, rather than any current interpretation of the definition by the courts of Washington. In Section One of this Comment, the policies behind the Employment Security Act and the ramifications of different culpability elements are discussed. Section Two details the different tests for misconduct generated by the courts. Part A of Section Two discusses the common law tests and their culpability elements prior to the 1993 statutory definition of misconduct. Part B …
Speak No Evil: Negligent Employment Referral And The Employer's Duty To Warn (Or, How Employers Can Have Their Cake And Eat It Too), J. Bradley Buckhalter
Speak No Evil: Negligent Employment Referral And The Employer's Duty To Warn (Or, How Employers Can Have Their Cake And Eat It Too), J. Bradley Buckhalter
Seattle University Law Review
This article begins by surveying the evolution of tort doctrine and the "no duty to act" rule. It then proceeds to examine current theories of employer liability in the referral and hiring context and moves on to trace the history of the negligent employment referral claim. Next, this section scrutinizes the Muroc decision and ends with a brief discussion of the future of negligent employment referral. Section III begins by exploring the implications of nondisclosure of reference information for both tort policy and tort doctrine. It then proposes an affirmative duty of disclosure as a solution by amalgamating the reasoning …