$27M Verdict Warns Employers: Vet and Train Employees or Pay the Price

A recent $27 million jury verdict should put every employer, especially those in the hospitality, retail, and entertainment industries, on high alert: failing to properly screen and train employees can result in significant liability.

On July 26, 2024, a Franklin County, Ohio jury awarded $27 million to the estate of Gregory Coleman Jr., who was beaten to death by two security guards outside a now-shuttered Columbus, Ohio bar and restaurant. The court found the bar’s ownership group 80% responsible, despite the fact that the fatal assault occurred on a public sidewalk.

This case is a sobering reminder to HR and labor and employment counsel that negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claims are not hypothetical risks: they are business-ending liabilities. Below is a breakdown of what happened, what the court found, and what employers must do to protect themselves.

What Happened: A Tragic Chain of Events

On September 5, 2022, two security guards employed by a bar viciously attacked Gregory Coleman Jr. on the sidewalk outside the premises. Surveillance footage captured Cummings sucker-punching Coleman in the face, “causing Coleman to crumble to the ground and smash his skull on the pavement,” rendering him unconscious. Both guards continued to beat him while he lay on the ground, unconscious. Coleman died 12 days later from his injuries.

While Cummings and Foster were criminally convicted and sentenced to 15 years to life, the estate of Coleman pursued civil justice, naming Julep’s ownership group as defendants in a wrongful death suit. The bar’s owners attempted to deflect responsibility, arguing that the fatal blows occurred outside the physical footprint of the business.

The jury rejected that defense. Instead, it found that the bar was grossly negligent in its hiring and oversight practices. Critically, evidence demonstrated that the bar failed to conduct background checks on its security staff and provided no training on de-escalation or appropriate use of force. The jury apportioned 80% of the fault to the bar owners, resulting in a $27 million judgment.

Why the Jury Held the Employer Liable

The jury’s verdict speaks volumes: an employer cannot shield itself from liability simply because violence occurs beyond its property line or even on a public sidewalk. The bar’s ownership was held responsible based on:

• Negligent hiring: No background checks were conducted, even though the individuals were hired to enforce safety and manage volatile situations.
• Failure to train: The guards received no documented instruction or oversight on handling conflict or use of force.
• Lack of supervision: The bar failed to implement any policies or systems to monitor or correct the behavior of on-site security.

These oversights allowed the employer’s agents to engage in deadly conduct while acting within the scope of their employment, leading directly to liability.

Employer Liability Doesn’t Stop at the Door

One of the most significant aspects of this case is the jury’s rejection of the “off-premises” defense. Employers should not assume that their liability ends at the edge of the building or property line. If an employee is acting within the scope of employment, even on adjacent sidewalks or parking lots, liability may still attach.

The principle is clear: where the employer creates the risk through negligent hiring or lack of training, liability follows the employee’s conduct, not the geography.

Lessons for Employers and HR Professionals

1. Conduct Criminal and Employment Background Checks. Employers, particularly in security-sensitive roles, roles charged with overseeing or caring for vulnerable populations such as minors or the elderly, or going into people’s homes, must perform criminal background checks, verify past employment, and look for red flags. In many jurisdictions, this is not just a best practice; it is a necessity.
2. Document Security Training. Security staff must receive documented training in the use of force, de-escalation tactics, conflict resolution, and crowd management. Failure to train employees is a direct path to liability.
3. Define Scope of Authority and Conduct Expectations. Job descriptions and employee handbooks should clearly outline the limits of authority for security staff, including clear prohibitions on the use of physical force except in legally justified situations.
4. Adopt a Zero-Tolerance Policy for Violence. All employers should maintain and enforce zero-tolerance policies for acts of violence by employees against patrons, coworkers, or others.
5. Implement Incident Reporting and Oversight. Employers should have procedures in place for documenting, reviewing, and escalating any use-of-force incidents. Lack of oversight mechanisms can bolster claims of negligent supervision.
6. Engage Insurance Counsel. Employers also need to ensure that their general liability or umbrella policy adequately covers negligent hiring, assault, and security-related incidents. Employer should also determine whether their policies contain exclusions that might leave them exposed in high-stakes litigation.

Key Legal Considerations for Employment Practices

This case also serves as a stark reminder that labor and employment counsel should take an active role in evaluating and advising on the use of third-party security vendors, contract workers, and gig laborers. Courts may still hold the principal liable if there is sufficient evidence that the employer controlled, knew of, or should have known of the risks posed by such individuals.

In addition, employers should avoid delegating training responsibilities entirely to staffing firms or third-party contractors without verifying their adequacy. Courts may still find direct liability if the employer is the de facto supervisor or creates the working environment that leads to harm.

Final Takeaway: Risk Management Is Not Optional

The death of Gregory Coleman Jr. and the resulting $27 million verdict against the bar that employed the security guards who caused his death off-site are a tragic and powerful example of the real-world consequences of negligent employment practices. For HR professionals, in-house counsel, and employment attorneys alike, this case underscores the critical importance of proactive risk management, especially when it comes to employee conduct, safety-sensitive roles, and third-party security arrangements.

The best way to avoid being the next cautionary tale is to ensure that your organization invests in screening, training, oversight, and a workplace culture of accountability.