Plaintiff was hired in late October 2018 as a Quality Assurance Inspector for a FEMA-funded disaster recovery program in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, operating in the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. HMB’s client, a Texas-based contractor, engaged a staffing agency to recruit and place inspectors for the program and provided on-site supervision of those employees, including Plaintiff. Within three months of Plaintiff’s arrival in St. Croix, he became involved in a physical altercation with a coworker over an unpaid gambling debt. Both employees were removed from the project that same morning and Plaintiff’s assignment was terminated. Plaintiff sued HMB’s client along with the staffing agency and the disaster response company overseeing the program asserting claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent retention. Plaintiff alleged that representatives of HMB’s client made promises of long-term employment that induced him to relocate from the mainland, and that the client negligently retained the coworker who attacked him after threatening text messages were reported to a supervisor the morning of the incident. Plaintiff sought damages for lost wages, failed real estate investments, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life. Following oral argument, Chief Judge Robert A. Molloy of the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands granted summary judgment in favor of HMB’s client on all remaining claims. As to fraudulent misrepresentation, the Court found that any assurances made by HMB’s client to Plaintiff occurred after he had already accepted employment and relocated to St. Croix — meaning those statements could not, as a matter of law, have induced the very action Plaintiff claimed he was deceived into taking. As to negligent retention, the Court found that a single evening of threatening text messages from a coworker with no prior record of violent behavior, first reported on the very morning the altercation occurred, was legally insufficient to establish the employee incompetence or propensity for violence required to sustain such a claim. The Court further found that Plaintiff’s alleged damages were too remote, speculative, and foreclosed by his at-will employment status to support recovery. Chivonne Thomas of Hamilton, Miller and Birthisel, LLP secured the complete summary judgment victory on behalf of the firm’s client.
