The most important legal issue surfacing in this case pertains to the duty of care. The issue of the duty of care is the legal obligation that is imposed upon individuals that require them to act in accordance with a standard of reasonable care when performing acts that are likely to have foreseeable harm to others (Elliott & Quinn, 2007). According to law, a person who has the duty of care is obliged to ensure that they do not suffer from loss or harm. The duty of care does not only extend to the people directly under ones’ care. In addition, the legal issues therefore extend to whether one has the duty of care to those who are not in direct care of the person but who may suffer from the consequences of his or her action (Steele, 2007). The legal issue in this case is the liability of an employer who recommends an employee for employment while still knowing that the employee poses a danger to third parties. The legal issues intertwine with the moral obligation of giving a recommendation that mainly reflects the real character of an employee. In the case, the plaintiff tries to prove that defendant bleached the duty of care in their official and personal capacity by giving a false recommendation about the employee. According to Walsh (2010), the duty of care in the case amounts to giving a real or false recommendation to a person who has been under direct supervision of the person giving the recommendation. In this case, the Steele and Mochen have been accused of breaching the duty of care by giving a false recommendation about Herrera. They recommended him as a trustworthy and valuable employee who they would rehire considering that he voluntarily resigned from his job rather than face a disciplinary committee. The plaintiff therefore argues that they breached the duty of care because they did not foresee the harm he posed to the third part, especially after being accused of sexual harassment.