The owner of a Baltimore rental building paid a man to cut grass and handle maintenance. He let him live in one of his apartments. He did not check his background.
The man was Jason Billingsley, a registered sex offender released on parole in October 2022. In September 2023 he attacked two tenants of that building, then days later killed Baltimore tech founder Pava LaPere. He pleaded guilty in 2024 and is serving life sentences.
In late 2025, a Baltimore jury awarded the two tenants $21.5 million, including $10 million in punitive damages, against the companies that owned and managed the building. The tenants' lawsuit argued that the companies neglected basic background vetting. The defendants have said they plan to appeal.
This is what negligent hiring looks like when it reaches a courtroom. It is not a paperwork issue.
It is the question a jury asks after someone is hurt: what did you know, and what should you have known?
What negligent hiring means
Negligent hiring is a claim that an employer is responsible for harm caused by a worker because the employer knew, or should have known, that the person was unfit for the job and hired them anyway. Rules differ by state, but claims usually turn on the same questions:
- Was there an employment or similar working relationship?
- Was the worker unfit for the role, given what the job allowed them to do?
- Did the employer know, or would a reasonable check have revealed, that unfitness?
- Did the worker cause the harm, and was it connected to the job?
A related claim, negligent retention, covers a worker who becomes a known risk after hiring and is kept on anyway.
The phrase that matters is "should have known." A jury does not need proof that the employer saw a record. It asks whether a reasonable employer, for that job, would have looked.
The Baltimore timeline
- A public record
Convictions for assault and a sex offense; listed on the sex offender registry.
- Released on parole
Released early from a prison sentence with good-time credits.
- Paid for maintenance work
The building owner later testified he met him at a bar, let him live in an apartment and paid him for odd jobs without checking his background.
- Tenants attacked
Posing as building maintenance, he attacked two tenants. Days later he killed Pava LaPere.
- Guilty pleas
He pleaded guilty to both attacks and received life sentences.
- Civil verdict
A Baltimore jury awarded the tenants $21.5M against the owner and the management company, which plan to appeal.
$21.5Mawarded to two tenants, including $10M in punitive damages
Three lessons for employers
1. Access to people's homes raises the bar
The work itself was ordinary: grass, repairs, a reported kitchen leak. The risk came from what the role allowed. A maintenance worker can knock on a tenant's door and be let in. The same is true of cleaners, technicians, movers, caregivers and many delivery roles.
When a job puts a worker alone with customers, inside homes or with keys, the screening should match that access. For in-home roles, that usually means identity verification, a sex offender registry search, national and county criminal searches, and, for driving roles, a motor vehicle record.
2. "He wasn't really an employee" may not be a defense
At trial, the building owner disputed that the man was an employee. He was paid for odd jobs and given a place to stay. The jury still awarded damages against the owner and the management company.
Informal arrangements create the same exposure as a formal hire when the person acts for you and customers trust them because of it. Contractors, day labor and helpers who work under your name belong in the same screening policy as staff.
3. Speed is not a reason to skip the check
Small operators often skip screening because they need someone this week. Automated checks have changed that trade-off: the basic searches for an in-home role usually return within minutes, not weeks.
