Is an employee of a company personally liable if they violate the law on behalf of the company? In essentially any interaction between customers and businesses, there are people on the business end who are communicating with customers on the business's behalf. This might mean customer service agents, repairmen, store clerks, or any number of other positions. If one of these representatives of the company violates the law in their carrying out of company business, can they be held personally liable, or are they protected under the company umbrella? For example, say an employee at a restaurant refuses to serve a gay man, or an account manager at Wells Fargo fraudulently creates a bank account for an unwitting customer. Can either of these employees be held personally liable for illegal behavior on behalf of a company? What difference does it make if the company shows a pattern of this behavior through other employees?
The only excuse would be if you didn't know that your actions were a crime (not ignorance of the law, that's not an excuse, but ignorance of facts). For example, if your boss doesn't want you to serve a customer because that customer is gay, and your boss tells you "don't serve that customer, he was here last week and didn't pay the bill", you would be fine. Or if the boss of a demolition company sends a crew out to demolish the house of a personal enemy (surely a crime), the crew would have no idea that their action is a crime, so they should be fine. But if the boss of a bar or club orders a bouncer to beat up a customer, then the bouncer would know that he's committing a crime, and there is no excuse possible.
Because they are consumer protection laws The purpose of the laws is to protect the consumer and the consumer’s relationship is with the retailer. Therefore the laws make the retailer responsible for dealing with the consumer’s problem. The retailer profited from the deal so why shouldn’t they be held responsible for sourcing only from reputable manufacturers/importers?
I can't find any law that would prevent an employer from requiring this. Under current Florida law, an employer can even demand passwords and access to an employee's social media accounts. A bill was proposed to prohibit this, but it hasn't passed. Generally, an employer can require anything they want as a condition of employment, as long as it is not illegal. Florida has at-will employment so the employer could certainly fire the employee if they don't comply.
If the employment was at will, the most the company could have done was fire her. If the employment has already been ended on good terms, the most the company can do is refuse to rehire her and/or give bad references. As you point out, no contract existed and they'd have a devil of a time proving damages anyway.
I think this is a lot like this question Liability for poisoning food one expects to be stolen because you are causing harm to someone/something when they are using your things without permission. That question says that if you expect someone to do something with something that you have purposely made wrong then you are legally responsible for the effects.
Is there any type of California labor law that would allow for him to ask for compensation for lost wages? Your family member might have a claim of [intentional?] misrepresentation. Simply put, it is unjustifiable for a well-known transportation company to misrepresent for too long the requirements its drivers must satisfy. Assessment of other legal theories such as breach of contract or promissory estoppel requires a detailed knowledge of the interactions and terms between the parties. Freeman &amp; Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co., 11 Cal.4th 85, 107 (1995) points out that &quot;courts will generally enforce the breach of a contractual promise through contract law, except when the actions that constitute the breach violate a social policy that merits the imposition of tort remedies&quot;. Misleading and belatedly avoiding a hiree who relied on the company's conduct contravenes public policy because of the ensuing disruptions and uncertainty the company could and should have avoided. Accordingly, see Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. .v Dana Corp., 22 Call Rptr. 352, 361 (2004) (&quot;[A] plaintiff advances the public interest in punishing intentional misrepresentations and in deterring such misrepresentations in the future.&quot;). Generally speaking, the doctrine known as economic loss rule bars claims of negligent misrepresentation involving no property damage or personal injury. That is in order to preempt a party from sidestepping contract law. However, the extent of the company's conduct as you describe it might forfeit the protections embodied in the doctrine of at-will employment.
Does this amount to the employer potentially paying the employee to lie to them, to no ultimate legal effect? Or will the employee have a problem if they end up with an obligation to sign a statement that is not in agreement with reality? Neither. Contract law contemplates a party's subsequent inability to comply with the terms that were established at the formation of the contract. In the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, this is referred to as supervening impracticability. See, for instance, the Restatement at § 261. In the hypothetical scenario you outline, the loss of a company laptop renders the employee's promise (namely, "to return any company-issued computers or devices") impracticable. Instead, the circumstances may entitle the employer to restitution (by the employee) for what the employee now is literally unable to return. That would be cognizable as compliance in substance.
There is no real answer to that question at this point. If on filed such a suit, it would probably be under a negligence theory. You would sue: Forbes, because they're the website the user visited? The ad network that provided a vector for infection and didn't properly check their content? The makers of the ad, because they made the ad with malicious intent? and anyone else who might have been negligent. You then have to prove they were negligent. Can the user sue the responsible party for damages? You can sue anyone for anything. The problem is winning. Does it make a difference whether the user has taken due diligence with software updates and patches? It might. Contributory negligence would be an obvious defense to such a suit.