Day 41 of the A.J. trial: If the company had investigated Murray, he wouldn’t have been hired

Today, Jane Searight, a human resources expert for the Jacksons, took the stand and was questioned by Brian Panish. The company’s attorneys objected to many of the questions, but the judge allowed most of them to be answered.

Searight said that human resources refers to the people and employees involved in a business arrangement. The job of a human resources expert is to handle hiring and firing, employees’ wages and damages, and training for people; they deal with an employee’s work cycle from start to finish. For 25 years, Ms. Searight has welcomed many clients in various work areas—from law firms to restaurants, hospitals, and more. She also owns an appraisal business in Florida. She has never worked in the music or entertainment industry, but she said she is qualified to testify in this case because human resources principles are the same across all jobs. Searight said that whatever your profession is, human standards are shared across all professions.

Searight testified about the background checks companies and businesses conduct on their new employees. These checks include driving violations, crimes, financial standing, and social security. The cost of each investigation conducted by the human resources department is very small—between $5 and $30.

Searight said she has testified in 16 cases, including one in which a supervisor was killed by an employee. That former employee had a criminal record, but it had not been checked at the time of hiring. Searight said she worked a little over 100 hours on the A.J. case and was paid $300 for each hour.

She said that as a human resources expert, she tries to choose the right people for each profession and avoids employees who could put themselves or others at risk. She said she doesn’t make a distinction between an independent contractor and an employee; it’s only a job classification, but the same level of risk exists for both groups. In this case, AEG referred to Dr. Murray, Michael’s personal physician, as an independent contractor and said that because he was familiar with Michael, they did not investigate him. Searight said about the necessity and importance of background checks: “You can’t manage what you don’t know.” Knowing a person’s history reduces risk.

Before Searight, Panish asked: assuming that Paul Gangwer, the company’s manager, was aware of Michael Jackson’s use of prescription drugs, did that awareness play a vital role in hiring a doctor for Michael? Searight said: “Absolutely. That would have increased the risk even more.”

Panish asked: assuming the company had hired Dr. Murray, did the company follow proper hiring practices? Searight answered no. She said working as Michael Jackson’s personal doctor was very dangerous, and the company needed to conduct the necessary checks and ensure that Murray was qualified and not facing a conflict of interest. She explained that for certain reasons, the risk had become even greater, including that Murray worked in Michael’s home and had access to confidential information and Michael’s children. Panish asked whether the absence of a criminal record would be enough to qualify Murray. Searight disagreed and said the company should investigate Murray’s criminal background, credibility, social security, and driving violations. Searight said the company at least should have checked Murray’s financial history. This investigation, which would take only 5 minutes and cost less than $10, could have revealed the existence of a conflict of interest. Searight said checking people’s financial history is routine in companies and businesses.

What conflict of interest was Searight referring to?

Searight: “Dr. Murray was Michael Jackson’s doctor, but his salary was paid by the company that had the ability to stop the tour. If his financial history had been checked, Dr. Murray’s services would have ended.”

As a result of the financial review, it became clear that Murray was facing heavy debt. He couldn’t afford to pay his children’s monthly allowance, and his loan repayment to the bank had been delayed. Searight said having debt by itself isn’t the problem; the issue is inability to pay it, which means inability to meet obligations.

Searight said it wasn’t enough to present Murray as a good doctor: “You can’t always rely on what people say. Until you investigate them, you don’t know whether they have the necessary qualifications.”

Searight also said that the investigation conducted on other tour personnel—who were hired as independent contractors—did not meet the required standard and was based only on familiarity with the company or the artist, while contractors can also cause harm to the company as employees can.

Randy Phillips, the company’s CEO, wrote in an email to Kenny Ortega, the tour director, that everything had been checked about Dr. Murray and that he was an extremely successful doctor. Phillips himself admitted on the stand that no investigation had been done on Murray.

Before Searight, Panish asked whether there was anything in the documents that showed Dr. Murray was an extremely successful doctor. Searight said she hadn’t seen anything to support that. This expert said that in that same email, Randy Phillips implicitly confirmed the work criteria. Phillips had written that everything had been checked, that Murray was a successful doctor, ethical and unbiased, and didn’t need money. Searight said this email confirms that Randy Phillips knew they needed someone who was a successful doctor, ethical and unbiased, and didn’t need money. Phillips also mentioned in this email the need to look into Murray’s background—an investigation that was never done. Searight said Randy Phillips spoke about his wishes in the email: that he hoped Murray would be successful, that he wished he didn’t need money, that he wished he were ethical and unbiased. But in the end, it was proven that Murray was the opposite of those wishes. When Phillips wrote “everything has been checked,” he was actually expressing hope and moving away from reality.

Searight then addressed an email in which the company’s lawyer, Katie Jory, had sent a recommendation to Phillips to conduct an investigation into Murray. Searight said the company had the option to investigate, and if they wanted, they could have obtained the same information that the police had found, at low cost.

After Panish finished his questions, Jessica Stebbins Bena took the stand to ask questions.

Bena asked Searight whether all her statements were based on the assumption that the company had hired Dr. Murray. Searight answered yes. The judge reminded the jury that the decision about who to hire Murray was up to them.

Searight pointed out that the Jacksons’ case against AEG was the first case in which a person’s financial history became an issue; in other cases, criminal history had been raised.

Bena tried to push Searight—who had said there was no difference between an employee and an independent contractor—into defining the concept of “independent contractor.” Bena read a definition from a dictionary. Searight disagreed and said there was no clear definition.

During this part of Searight’s testimony, some jurors were asleep. The courtroom atmosphere was extremely boring. But those who were asleep were awakened by the noise and arguments between the lawyers. Bena believed that conducting financial background checks on people isn’t easy and requires their permission. She had a printout from the U.S. Equal Employment Commission website stating that financial background checks without consent are prohibited. Panish strongly objected and said there was no date on that sheet and it was unclear whether it was enforceable in 2009. He said the printout shouldn’t be shown to the jury. Following this objection, the jury was dismissed and the lawyers went to consult with the judge. Bena agreed she wasn’t sure whether that printout related to federal laws and that she would review it tonight.

The judge asked to read the printout. The judge then noted that the text in the printout differed from what Bena had said: “Here it says it’s generally better to avoid it, not that it’s prohibited.”

The printout said that research and investigation into a person’s assets and past finances should generally be avoided because it can negatively affect women or minors, but if the employer has a reasonable reason to do so and knowing this information is necessary, there is no obstacle.

Panish was extremely upset and said this printout wasn’t a law, principle, or policy. He asked the judge to instruct the jury to ignore what Bena had said because it was incorrect and would mislead their perspective and unnecessarily harm the plaintiff’s position. Panish said the judge and Bena had erred by presenting this printout and requested it be removed from the record. The judge said a decision would be made tomorrow after receiving definite information from Bena.

After this dispute ended, the jury returned to court.

Searight said that after reviewing Dr. Murray’s financial history, she found he wasn’t a suitable person to be hired, and at that moment she ended the investigation because the result had already been reached and there was no need to examine other criminal matters and so on.

The contract for Dr. Murray with AEG stated that Murray was required to fulfill the obligations requested by the producer (the company). Bena, as usual, pointed out that when writing the contract, an error occurred and instead of the artist, the producer’s name was mentioned.

Searight said many qualified people had reviewed this contract and hadn’t changed that clause, and it also hadn’t been changed in the final version of the contract.

Source: eMJey.com / ABC7 & LA Times