An Inside Look at Workplace Violence Liability Investigations

Sometimes seeing things from a different perspective helps. Especially when you’re navigating unchartered waters, as California employers are, while trying to comply with California’s new workplace violence prevention law.

Before helping employers prevent workplace violence. I helped people victimized by violence by conducting investigations for civil plaintiff attorneys proving liability against employers when their employees, or members of the public, were victimized by violence at their workplace or within the community. 

I believe that understanding where vulnerabilities occur in workplace violence prevention, and how I exposed those vulnerabilities when proving up liability, can help employers to improve your workplace violence prevention program. Here’s a few takeaways from my experiences.

California now requires employers to implement an effective workplace prevention program. My free California employers workplace violence prevention checklist can help you ensure that your workplace violence prevention program will keep your employees safer, and comply with California’s violence prevention law.

Notice 

Liability investigations begins with “notice”. What an employer “knew or should have known” about the risk of violence, and then once aware of that risk, what steps the employer took, such as training, changes to work practices, and repairs and alterations to the physical environment, that lessen that risk.

In many cases, especially when third parties were harmed by violence, it was because employers, or their employees, knew there were potential safety hazards, but took no action or insufficient action to correct them.

By way of example, workplace parking lots can be dangerous places for employees and invitees such as customers, clients, and patients. Parking lots are the third most common location for violence assaults. Yet, employers spent little time on preventing violence outside of the physical building where the workplace was located.

California’s workplace violence prevention law specifically tries to prevent this type of situation by requiring employers to assess the specific safety hazards their employees face, and to remedy those hazards.

The process for doing so, is similar to building a liability case. It involves conducting interviews with employees—yes, part of building the cases I did, involvedI interviewing employees. We were permitted to do so as long as the employees were not management, and could not bind the company. Typically I’d just show up at their homes during non-work hours and speak with them. And most employees did speak with me.

Employers need to begin developing a workplace violence prevention plan in the same way. 

By interviewing employees. That information can also be developed with an employee questionnaire, but it is much less effective than conducting an interview. You don’t need to interview all your employees, but you should aim for a representative sample based upon the type and nature of the work the different employees performed. 

Identifying safety hazards, or notice of risks for violence, doesn’t just have to involve actual violence. Situations that could easily have turned violent, but didn’t, are what we termed “near misses”.

Because they didn’t involve actual violence, employers often ignore them, or discount them. However, from a liability standpoint, and more importantly, from a violence prevention perspective, the elements of the situation that almost led to violence are in place, and unless those elements were addressed, and remedied the likelihood of violence from that safety hazard remains.

Physical Environment

When possible, I’d go to the workplace where the violence had occurred. I’d look at the parking area, entrances and exits, shrubbery, signs and poster placement, lighting, and when possible the interior layout, including the reception area.

What I looked for were ways that the physical environment could have contributed to the violent incident. And I focus on what physical aspects were beneficial to someone seeking to commit violence.

Line of sight, obstructions, and the ability to exit safely, were all factors to assess.

For example, posters in windows, or dumpsters, that obstruct the view of the parking area make it easier for an attacker to wait in place until their target appears. A lack of lights near the front door makes it less safe for those who arrive at work or leave in darkness. A reception area, where the person could be isolated from colleagues, makes it very easy for an attack to occur before any back up can help.

I’d take photographs when possible, make sketches, and even take measurements.

When conducting an assessment of the physical environment. I’d also look at the surrounding areas. Was community crime a problem at that location? And could that crime easily spill over into the work location, such as robbery, rape, or homicide? Then I’d try to ascertain what the employer knew about the level of community violence, and how did the employer address the safety hazards from the nearby areas.

Domestic violence that spills over into the workplace often occurs in the parking lot. So I’d look at how accessible the parking lot was for people on foot as well as by car, and whether there are places where someone could hide in place without being detected.

This type of assessment can help keep your employees safer from community and family source types of workplace violence.

Training

One of the ways we built a liability case was through examining training that the employer provided. The most important element of our focus on training was the relevance to the employee’s actual safety hazards, and to the relevance of the safety hazards invitees faced when at visiting the workplace.

I’ve provided workplace violence prevention training at courthouses, educational facilities, and multiple staff offices of a United States Senator, all of whom had previously received violence prevention training from law enforcement. 

But, they asked me to provide additional training because they felt the training they had received was standardized one-size fits all training, rather than training that was tailored directly to their employees specific safety hazards. 

Trainers that provide one-size fits all, boiler plate training do so because it’s easier for them to do. And for the employers doing same trainings that others do feels reinforcing. But, those types of trainings don’t address the specific safety hazards that those employees actually faced.

Active shooter training is a classic example of that type of boilerplate training. The risk of an active shooter is so much lower than other types of workplace violence, that it really isn’t what most employees need. But, it’s widely known, and it’s a feel good training. 

So too are the computer trainings. They may be the easiest training approach when you have many employees, but what are the retention rates for information for that type of training. And again, it’s boilerplate, one-sized fits all. It doesn’t provide training as to the specific safety hazards your employees face.

When conducting liability investigations, over a violent workplace incident I always asked employees what type of training they received.I don’t remember a single incident occurring at a workplace where employees received specific training to the safety hazards they face, with  of enough engagement to create retention of the information.

Some employers provide de-escalation training as if it’s a workplace violence prevention panacea. The belief is that employees can avoid violence by talking their way out of it. De-escalation training is certainly worthwhile. But, violence is non-linear, and many situations of workplace violence did not begin from a place where de-escalation would keep an employee from being attacked.

The attacker simply attacked. Without warning. Without provocation.

Not matching the type of training provided to your employees with the types of safety hazards they face is going to make your employees less safe, and open a door for an attorney big enough to drive a tractor trailer through.

These were just a few areas that we focused on when building a liability case when violence struck employees or invitees at a workplace. Hopefully, this information can help you to design an effective workplace violence prevention program that keeps your employees safer.

With the holidays here, I wanted to wish you all Happy Holidays and New Year! 

It’s important to make your workplace violence prevention program is effective. In fact, California requires that. But most employers simply don’t have the experience with violence needed to know what does and does not work to prevent violence. I can help you keep your employees safer, and comply with California’s new workplace violence prevention law. Schedule your free consultation. Together we’ll review where you are at, and what approach to take to achieve your goals.