Preventing and Responding to Workplace Violence
The saying, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure,” has never been more applicable. In that spirit, implementing policies and procedures to avoid violence in the workplace is critical.
June 10, 2019 at 10:01 AM
5 minute read
Many employers are questioning how to protect their employees from violence in the wake of the May 31 shooting in Virginia Beach. Tragically, Virginia Beach is only the most recent instance of an increasing trend of workplace violence. In 2016 alone, there were 500 workplace homicides according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The National Safety Council reports approximately 823 workplace deaths resulting from violence in 2017.
The saying, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure,” has never been more applicable. In that spirit, implementing policies and procedures to avoid violence in the workplace is critical.
The deadliest of these situations typically involve an active shooter, which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defines as someone “actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” One way to minimize the risk of an active shooter is to remove, or at least minimize, the number of weapons in the workplace. In Florida, employers may prohibit employees and others from bringing firearms into the workplace. However, the Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008 mandates that employees must be allowed to keep legally owned firearms inside a locked, private vehicle, even in the employer's parking lot. Invading an employee's privacy by asking whether they have a gun in their car, demanding to inspect their vehicle and conditioning employment on whether an employee holds a firearm license are also prohibited. These restrictions do not apply to company-owned vehicles and certain safety-sensitive workplaces are exempt.
Additionally, adopting a zero-tolerance policy toward workplace violence sends an important message that employees must adhere to a strict standard of appropriate behavior. This should encompass all forms of violence and threats of violence. Anti-bullying policies may also be beneficial. Victims of long-term bullying may have feelings of being persecuted by others, which can be a potential warning sign of violence. In light of social media's pervading and ever-growing presence in our lives, many employees need to be informed that workplace conduct policies should extend to online conduct including company email and social media.
Early identification of warning signs can also make all the difference in preventing a tragedy. While there is no way to predict an attach, certain behaviors that might signal future violence include: excessive use of alcohol or drugs; unexplained absenteeism or changes in behavior; suicidal comments; persistent complaining about unfair treatment; disproportionately emotional responses to criticism; mood swings; and paranoia. The Sandy Hook Promise organization offers “Know the Signs” programs that include research-based practices to help prevent gun violence. As the group observes, it is important to remember that one warning sign on its own likely does not mean that a person is planning an act of violence. However, when many connected or cumulative signs are observed over time, it could indicate that the person Employees should be encouraged to report patterns of aberrant behavior, following the “See Something, Say Something” motto. Most mass shootings are planned for six months to a year and included warning signs that were not understood or acted upon.
Employers should also consider creating an emergency action plan and providing training exercises with local law enforcement. DHS offers a number of helpful resources, including online training for how to deal with an active shooter. These situations are fluid so it is critical for individuals to be mentally and physically prepared. In particular, you should always be aware of your environment and note the two nearest exits. During an active shooter situation, many experts recommend Run-Hide-Fight response. If there is an accessible escape path, attempt to evacuate the premises. Leave your belongings behind, evacuate regardless of whether others agree to follow, help others escape if possible, and call 911 when you are safe. If evacuation is not possible, find a place to hide. An ideal hiding place should be out of the shooter's view, provide protection (such as an office with a closed and locked door) and not restrict your options for movement. As a last resort, and only if your life is in imminent danger, attempt to disrupt or incapacitate the shooter.
Obviously, this short summary is only the tip of the iceberg and should not be construed as a comprehensive plan of action. Instead, consider this an introduction to issues for deliberation and resources available for consultation in the effort to prevent, mitigate, and respond to violence. There is no greater tool available to employers than the ability to think and plan ahead.
Brett J. Schneider is managing director of the Palm Beach Office of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman and chairs the firm's labor and employment practice group.
Michael S. Kantor is an associate in the firm's Fort Lauderdale office.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 2US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 3Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 4McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 5Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250