Counselling Agency: Case Study: XYZ Counseling Agency

721 Words 3 Pages
CASE EXAMPLE B: XYZ Counseling Agency, a Limited Liability Company, hired Chuck as an anger management counselor. Two months ago during a counseling session with a client named Wilbur, Chuck became very angry at Wilbur's failure to improve and beat up Wilbur. A week earlier, XYZ Counseling had counseled Chuck about an incident in which he grabbed a client by the arm and shook him. XYZ Counseling has a specific policy against violence and has disciplined employees who violate it, but it has never terminated anyone for such conduct. Five years ago, another counseling firm fired Chuck after he hit a client. Wilbur has sued XYZ Counseling Agency. (100 points) …show more content…
By making a decision to hire Chuck despite his bad work record (he was fired from his previous job for physically assaulting a client) the counseling company took up responsibility for his actions, thus providing the plaintiff enough reason to sue the defendant of the grounds of “tort of negligence”. It is essential to keep in mind that the company is responsible for its employee’s actions, which is why Wilbur is suing the counseling agency and the individual employee. If the plaintiff won the case the counseling company and not the individual employee (Chuck) would be held responsible for the consequences. In addition, the plaintiff can point out the negligence in the hiring process of the company, where despite knowing that Chuck had faced charges of assault in the past, the counseling company chose to overlook such an important aspect and hired him and put a clients life in danger. To make matters worse, Chuck had displayed such outbursts of rage with another client in the counseling company where he had grabbed the client’s arm. The counseling company was aware of this and still chose to let him work after a brief counseling session. The above-mentioned incidents would be very critical in establishing a case against the defendant on the grounds of …show more content…
It could just as easily have been that Chuck attacked Wilbur on the grounds of self-defense.
Upon viewing both sides of the case I would award the lawsuit to the plaintiff Wilbur. He sued the company on the grounds of taking responsibility for its employee’s actions. The company clearly compromised the safety of its costumers by hiring Chuck despite being aware of his past work history. In addition, the company was negligent in that they let Chuck continue to work despite having a row with a client merely a week before the incident. Based on the lack of evidence presented by the defense, it is only fair to award the lawsuit to the plaintiff.
As an alternative solution to such problems, the company should have been more responsible and offered Chuck sabbatical until he resolved his anger issues when the first incident (when he grabbed the client by his arm and shook him) was reported. The use of technology such as security camera’s in the counseling session rooms would help serve as concrete evidence in such cases. The company should have done a more diligent job in the hiring process; they should have made an effort to consider client

Related Documents