According to the previous Enterprise article, Davis had a completely clean record.  All criminal and sex offender background checks came back clear.  So Davis met all the requirements of the various government agencies, and was authorized to chauffeur.

“Defendant Davis disclosed to Guardian that he had previously been charged with a crime involving sexual misconduct with a minor.”

First, what was disclosed to Guardian?  Was that in writing?  Was the conversation recorded?  Where’s the evidence of exactly what was said and in what context?  They are going out on a pretty big limb to base an entire case on that piece of hearsay, since Davis was legally entitled to hold that job at Guardian.  Davis wasn’t convicted of sexual misconduct, only charged with it, which means absolutely nothing.  As an employer, Guardian cannot discriminate, and not hiring someone over an _alleged_ crime that was not proven in court would be discrimination.

“LogistiCare and Guardian, each knew or each should have known in the exercise of reasonable care, that Defendant Davis possessed known traits and propensities of a criminal sexual nature making him dangerous to the public.”

Davis possessed known “traits and propensities”?  Really?  What are these traits?  The type of food he liked to eat?  How he combed his hair?  Seriously, exactly what are these “traits and propensities” that can be so easily used to identify people that are “dangerous to the public”?  This attorney must really have things figured out.  Since her technique is so infallible, and can identify criminals BEFORE they commit a crime, why don’t we just employ it to throw people in jail, or have these inevitable sexual offenders sterilized, before they even have a chance to commit a crime?

“We’re hoping that this sends a very loud and clear message,” said Terri Bowles, the attorney for the plaintiff. “We went for them all.”

The message is pretty clear.  I wonder what percentage of the $12 million she stands to receive.

The problem that can be seen with this is “what type of background investigation did Guardian actually conduct.“  Although he may not have been convicted (and so far that has been heresay on everyones part), the fact that he was charged is still on your criminal history, unless he has paid a lawyer to have it expunged from the record.

That and the fact that he indicated to his employer that he was charged with this type of sick crime should have raised flags with anyone. As a student I read case law that indicated that sexual predators have a ratio of 26:1. That means, on average, they will commit this type of crime 26 times before they are actually caught the first time. That was a 1977 study. The most recent study conducted in 2004 indicates a ratio of 101:1. (I’m sorry, I do not remember which agency conducted the study)  This is a very disturbing number. I wished there was a way of predicting if a person will commit this type of crime and take measures to prevent it from occurring. 

This very issue is why law makers and communities want to keep sexual offenders locked up even after they have “paid their debt to society.“ The number of re-offending sexual predators has been all that has garnered the fair share of news stories lately.

After you do this type of crime, do you really “pay your debt”. I think there are thousands of victims out there that will say differently.

Just some thoughts.

I have come to know many true advocates of the disenfranchised through years of working within the juvenile justice and mental health fields.  Advocates who stand up for the rights of those who have not the strength nor the voice to speak for themselves.  I include Terri Bowles as one such advocate. 

Ms. Bowles has proven herself not only to me but to a multitude of others who have had the opportunity to witness first-hand her willingness to speak out for victims such as the one she is representing in this case.  Ms. Bowles pushes for accountability and fairness and accepts nothing less.  Should there be no accountability in this case?  Should this victim not have an advocate to assist her in recovering?  Should future clientele of this service not be protected?  Other posted comments have insinuated that this is a frivolous lawsuit based on hearsay.  I have read the article multiple times but I find no where that evidence was presented.  Does that lead one to assume hearsay? 

I openly admit bias in favor of Ms. Bowles, just as I openly admit bias in favor of the rights of those victimized and against those who are predators.

“Should there be no accountability in this case?  Should this victim not have an advocate to assist her in recovering?  Should future clientele of this service not be protected?“

Have you forgotten that the PERSON that committed this crime - the free moral agent acting of his own free will - is in JAIL and is charged with felony counts for his actions?  Is that not accountability?

Ms. Bowles statement “We went for them all” is telling enough in itself.  Obviously Davis isn’t worth much, so the shotgun approach is being utilized to see who will cough up some cash in a settlement.

Dan East,

It doesn’t matter that the person that commited the rapes is currently serving jail time or not.  The fact of the matter is that Gaurdian hired him after he clearly told them about his past crimes.  Mr. Davis couldn’t have raped those women if Gaurdian hadn’t hire him and knowingly send him out on trips alone with the women giving him the oportunity to rape the women.

The fact that Mr. Davis disclosed his past to Mr. Griffith didn’t have to be in writing or recorded to make it true.  The fact of the matter is that Mr. Griffith admitted it in a newpaper interview and it was splashed all over the pages for everyone to read. 

As an employer and knowing of Davis’ past Gaurdian needs to be held accoutnable for their actions.  Perhaps being sued will make Gaurdian think more clearly before they hire someone who has admitted to their past crimes. 

I think the only way to handle this case to go after them all.  Perhaps then the employers would start hiring reputable emplyees and an ambulance ride would be safe again.

To be quite honest, if I suddenly became ill and needed a trip to the hospital I wouldn’t want Gaurdian employees anywhere near me.

“The fact of the matter is that Mr. Griffith admitted it in a newpaper interview and it was splashed all over the pages for everyone to read.“

If you’ll read that story again (and note the comment I made at the time), you’ll see that Tim was quoted verbatim a number of times, however he was only paraphrased about what Davis said before he was hired.  If you think about it, it simply doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for someone to make statements of that nature during the hiring process: “Hi, I’m here to apply for a driving position.  By the way, I molested a child, but was only convicted of assault.“  Would someone really say anything remotely like that during the hiring process?

“To be quite honest, if I suddenly became ill and needed a trip to the hospital I wouldn’t want Gaurdian employees anywhere near me.“

If your house catches on fire you better not call the fire department either, because Davis was a member of the Ivanhoe fire department too, and by your logic they must all be sexual offenders as well.

One thing I don’t think many people understand is that Guardian operates under two different capacities.  One is the medical transport business, which is what most people think of when they hear of Guardian.  The other business is more recent, and is merely a taxi service.  From what I understand, Davis was considered a chauffeur and was transporting non-medical patients who did not require an attendant.  He was not driving an ambulance, but a van or car.
Also, according to another Enterprise story, Guardian now requires two employees to be present for all transports of female passengers, even for simple non-medical taxi trips.

The simple fact of the matter is Davis could have been working for any regular taxi service, which would have even less stringent background checks, and similar opportunities for assaults would have eventually come about.

Your arguments have several holes. 

One, a regular taxi service is NOT commissioned to transport disabled consumers. A professional service within the medical field, who have to meet specific expectations, is.  Your analogy is like asking a anyone with a sharp knife to surgically remove a vital organ.  Or perhaps it’s like asking anyone with an opinion to defend you in a court of law, and then have anyone with platform from which to shout to make a judgment in the case. 

Two, yes, people admit to and tell on themselves all the time.  People also say and do dumb things all the time, and then defend it to the bitter end, despite making themselves look even more silly. 

Third, a member of any fire department is not commissioned to transport a disabled person, who can not run for help or run away when someone attacks them.  Firemen fight fires in teams, and are… wait… fighting fires, not providing transportation for disabled individuals.

Both parties in this situation have a qualified professional to make their case in a court, where it will be decided.  Ms. Bowles doesn’t decide it, she merely makes one of the arguments.  Mr. Davis has an advocate in the court system as well, as it should be.  I bet his former employers also have the option to have an advocated in the court system.  But I guarantee you that one of their arguments won’t be, If you think about it, it simply doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for someone to admit to former allegations or crimes when applying for a job.

“If your house catches on fire you better not call the fire department either, because Davis was a member of the Ivanhoe fire department too, and by your logic they must all be sexual offenders as well”.
I do not think this is a logical deduction from what was originally stated.  If someone has a history of being convicted or merely charged of any sexual crime that person continues to have the right and privilege to hold down a job and/or to participate in volunteer activities.  However, it becomes the responsibility of the employer or representative in any organization, especially organizations that provide a service to disabled individuals, to thoroughly screen for potential individuals who are attempting to position themselves in an opportunity where they can take advantage of others. 
I respect your need to advocate and point out things you feel people are doing wrong however I vote that you advocate for the women who were raped repeatedly.  I vote that you point out the wrong of those employers who knowingly hired someone who discussed that they had previous charges of a sexual nature and who put them in a position to be alone with someone that they knew they could take advantage of in one of the most dehumanizing ways possible. 
“The other business is more recent, and is merely a taxi service.  From what I understand, Davis was considered a chauffeur and was transporting non-medical patients who did not require an attendant.  He was not driving an ambulance, but a van or car.”
The fact of the matter is Davis was not a taxi driver, or a chauffeur, or some stranger on the side of the road that the victims flagged down to give them a ride.  He was employed by Guardian, who had prior knowledge of his past, who decided that he seemed “ok” for the position, and who bi-passed any notion of “duty to warn” and proceeded about their business. 
Perhaps Guardian can tell by the way someone combs their hair if they are a sex offender?  Apparently not.  But I’m willing to bet that Mrs. Bowles premonition of this man is a lot more correct.