Naperville Psychiatric Ventures hired a staff person to care for patients in its residential facility for minors, but did not do the background check required by law. Had it done so, it would have learned that the staffer had a drug conviction, and that he had changed his name prior to applying for the job. Six months after he was hired, the facility received notice from the Social Security Administration that the staffer’s social security number did not match his name, but they took no action on this information. The staffer sexually assaulted a minor at the facility, and she sued for negligent hiring. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the facility, and she appealed.

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Illinois appeals court decide?

2. Look at the “Elements of a Claim” feature for negligent hiring cases. See if you can tease out the facts of this case that correspond to each of the elements of a negligent hiring claim. Which of these elements are readily established in this case and which are more open to question? Why?

3. Ultimately, what reasoning does the appeals court use in reaching its decision? Why were the three cases cited by the defendants not deemed persuasive?

4. What is an appropriate background check for a job like this? Should evidence of criminal history automatically disqualify a candidate, regardless of the nature of the offense? What other tools, besides more careful screening of job candidates, were available to the facility to prevent this type of harm to patients?