Labor: Violence in the workplace can happen to you
In this time of continuing economic uncertainty, and in the wake of horrific public shooting incidents, employers should develop workplace-specific policies and procedures to address, and reduce, the threat of workplace violence.
January 07, 2013 at 06:13 AM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In this time of continuing economic uncertainty, and in the wake of horrific public shooting incidents, employers should develop workplace-specific policies and procedures to address, and reduce, the threat of workplace violence. With recent data showing that workplace violence impacts at least 2 million U.S. workers per year and costs U.S. businesses nearly $36 billion dollars annually, workplace violence is an issue that demands employers' attention.
Employer's Duty to Prevent Violence
Under federal and state law, employers have a legal duty to prevent workplace violence and related behavior. For example, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requires that employers protect employees against recognized workplace safety hazards likely to cause serious injury or death. Similarly, the federal Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers protect employees against all forms of workplace harassment, including harassment that creates a hostile or offensive workplace environment. Because sexual, racial and other forms of harassment can often lead to confrontations, employers should take steps to prevent harassment, and to address harassment as soon as they learn of its occurrence. States also have enacted varying laws addressing safety hazards and harassment, including, for example, laws requiring that leave from work be provided to victims of violence. Employers have been found liable for such things as negligently failing to investigate employees before hiring, and failing to adequately warn, discipline and terminate employees that engage in inappropriate conduct. As a corollary to taking proper action pursuant to OSHA, Title VII and other federal and state laws to prevent workplace violence, employers simultaneously must take care not to unlawfully discriminate against employees that fall under various protected categories (e.g., race) through the application of its anti-violence policies. Employers also must be careful not to consider prior arrest records and lawful off-duty conduct if consideration of these factors is prohibited by applicable state law. Moreover, employers should educate themselves regarding any relevant state laws, particularly any gun laws that permit employees to bring guns to work premises. While balancing these competing interests and resolutions may be no easy task, employers nonetheless must make such efforts to ensure they have facilitated a safe workplace.
Recommendations for Employers
Although handling workplace violence is always a daunting task, there are certain basic steps employers can take to minimize the occurrence and impact of such violence.
First, employers should consider conducting background checks that effectively and lawfully identify candidates with histories of violence. Such information, of course, should only be used in accordance with applicable law.
Second, employers should conduct annual assessments of their workplace to determine whether their anti-violence policy is sufficient, and wherever possible, should consider implementing a zero-tolerance policy. Such a policy should clearly define prohibited behavior, regulate weapons in the workplace in accordance with applicable state law, require prompt reporting of policy violations, provide for confidentiality and nonretaliation and impose discipline for policy violations. Employers also should have emergency response policies in place for dealing with violent situations in the workplace, including an appropriately trained response team and coordination with local authorities. Additionally, employers should have a clear policy in place for ensuring the safe termination of employment.
Third, employers should draft and implement additional standards of conduct, discipline, anti-harassment, anti-discrimination and other relevant policies. Such policies are key to addressing underlying conflict and behavior before it results in workplace violence. Employers should also provide training to supervisors and employees on such policies, and make certain that policies are being properly and consistently enforced.
From coworker gripes to disgruntled employees to victims of violence, workplace violence readily can impact all employers and can result in costly litigation, damage to the employer's brand in the media, and other such negatives—not to mention, of course, the personal harm and conflicts associated with the violence or inappropriate conduct itself. Accordingly, employers would be wise to make workplace safety and anti-violence a top priority in their workplace.
Also read InsideCounsel's January Labor story, “EEOC warns employers of discrimination related to domestic violence.”
In this time of continuing economic uncertainty, and in the wake of horrific public shooting incidents, employers should develop workplace-specific policies and procedures to address, and reduce, the threat of workplace violence. With recent data showing that workplace violence impacts at least 2 million U.S. workers per year and costs U.S. businesses nearly $36 billion dollars annually, workplace violence is an issue that demands employers' attention.
Employer's Duty to Prevent Violence
Under federal and state law, employers have a legal duty to prevent workplace violence and related behavior. For example, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requires that employers protect employees against recognized workplace safety hazards likely to cause serious injury or death. Similarly, the federal Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers protect employees against all forms of workplace harassment, including harassment that creates a hostile or offensive workplace environment. Because sexual, racial and other forms of harassment can often lead to confrontations, employers should take steps to prevent harassment, and to address harassment as soon as they learn of its occurrence. States also have enacted varying laws addressing safety hazards and harassment, including, for example, laws requiring that leave from work be provided to victims of violence. Employers have been found liable for such things as negligently failing to investigate employees before hiring, and failing to adequately warn, discipline and terminate employees that engage in inappropriate conduct. As a corollary to taking proper action pursuant to OSHA, Title VII and other federal and state laws to prevent workplace violence, employers simultaneously must take care not to unlawfully discriminate against employees that fall under various protected categories (e.g., race) through the application of its anti-violence policies. Employers also must be careful not to consider prior arrest records and lawful off-duty conduct if consideration of these factors is prohibited by applicable state law. Moreover, employers should educate themselves regarding any relevant state laws, particularly any gun laws that permit employees to bring guns to work premises. While balancing these competing interests and resolutions may be no easy task, employers nonetheless must make such efforts to ensure they have facilitated a safe workplace.
Recommendations for Employers
Although handling workplace violence is always a daunting task, there are certain basic steps employers can take to minimize the occurrence and impact of such violence.
First, employers should consider conducting background checks that effectively and lawfully identify candidates with histories of violence. Such information, of course, should only be used in accordance with applicable law.
Second, employers should conduct annual assessments of their workplace to determine whether their anti-violence policy is sufficient, and wherever possible, should consider implementing a zero-tolerance policy. Such a policy should clearly define prohibited behavior, regulate weapons in the workplace in accordance with applicable state law, require prompt reporting of policy violations, provide for confidentiality and nonretaliation and impose discipline for policy violations. Employers also should have emergency response policies in place for dealing with violent situations in the workplace, including an appropriately trained response team and coordination with local authorities. Additionally, employers should have a clear policy in place for ensuring the safe termination of employment.
Third, employers should draft and implement additional standards of conduct, discipline, anti-harassment, anti-discrimination and other relevant policies. Such policies are key to addressing underlying conflict and behavior before it results in workplace violence. Employers should also provide training to supervisors and employees on such policies, and make certain that policies are being properly and consistently enforced.
From coworker gripes to disgruntled employees to victims of violence, workplace violence readily can impact all employers and can result in costly litigation, damage to the employer's brand in the media, and other such negatives—not to mention, of course, the personal harm and conflicts associated with the violence or inappropriate conduct itself. Accordingly, employers would be wise to make workplace safety and anti-violence a top priority in their workplace.
Also read InsideCounsel's January Labor story, “EEOC warns employers of discrimination related to domestic violence.”
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
© 2025 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 AllNLRB Blisters Skilled Care Home Chain That Terminated Nursing Assistant Who Complained About Wages
6 minute readClass Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
6 minute readJetBlue Airways Will Pay $2M to Settle DOT Charges of Chronically Delayed Flights
Trending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
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