Does UPS Have a Moral Obligation??

     UPS has a long history of not revealing to future employers the reasons that caused them to terminate an employee. That works to your advantage if you get fired, because all potential employers are in the dark as to why or under what circumstances you left UPS.    
     It’s interesting to note here that when UPS is threatening to fire you they will tell you that they will “tell all” and prevent you from ever getting another good job if you don’t just sign off and quit. But that’s not true. In reality, they only give the dates that you were employed and nothing else. NOTHING.
     While that works to your advantage if you get canned, it works to the disadvantage of the general public, as seen in this case of Johnson VS United Parcel Service. Read the brief analysis of the case and you be the judge.
     Is UPS’s silence a wise policy or are they simply passing their problems on to others?

                                         JOHNSON v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC

Larry Demond Johnson was employed by Kroger Limited Partnership I at a Kroger Distribution Center. In June of 2005, Kroger hired Raymal Rivers. Rivers and Johnson worked together at the Distribution Center. On May 27, 2006, Rivers and Johnson, accompanied by several other employees, left the Distribution Center during their lunch break to eat at a nearby McDonalds. During the lunch, an argument broke out between Johnson and Rivers. At some point, Rivers left the parking lot of the McDonalds to retrieve a firearm from his vehicle, after which point he returned, shot, and fatally wounded Johnson.

Before working for Kroger, Rivers had been employed by UPS from June 2000 until 2004. While employed by UPS, Rivers displayed aggressive behavior on numerous occasions. On February 27, 2004, Rivers threatened a coworker, James Beasley, who then reported the incident to management. Rivers also engaged in other aggressive behavior, such as making threats to co-workers in the parking lot and waiting in the parking lot for employees to leave. He also reportedly followed female co-workers to their cars. The co-workers reported these incidents to members of management and security at UPS. On March 10, 2004, UPS held a disciplinary hearing regarding these allegations against Rivers. Rivers was reassigned to a new work area and ordered to attend anger management classes. He was later terminated from UPS.

Some time after being fired by UPS, Rivers applied for employment with Kroger. On his application for employment, he listed UPS as a previous employer. Kroger called UPS to obtain verification and for a reference check. The Estate alleges that UPS verified only the dates of employment and the title of the position Rivers held.

Kroger thereafter hired Rivers to work at the Distribution Center where Johnson worked. After Johnson was killed, his Estate brought the present action in Jefferson Circuit Court, claiming, among other things, that UPS was negligent in its referral and failure to warn Kroger and that UPS was negligent in its performance of the duty it undertook and in its misrepresentation of Rivers.

What do you think?
Does UPS have a responsibility to warn a future employer of a potentially violent ex-employee?