Vigilance stops violence—and lawsuits: behavior that can escalate to violence is increasing. To quell violence and lawsuits, HR must recognize and respond to problem behavior, and ensure a safe work environment for all

Workforce,  Oct, 2002  by Janet Wiscombe

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

News reports tell of disgruntled employees who massacre coworkers and supervisors in a murderous rage: A crazed man bludgeons his wife and children to death and then goes on a shooting spree in Atlanta at two day-trading brokerage firms. A Xerox repairman guns down coworkers in Honolulu. An engine-plant employee opens fire in Illinois. A delivery-truck driver goes postal in Alabama.

Stories about workplace violence are as horrifying as subsequent lawsuits are costly. But the real scope and nature of workplace violence and its legal ramifications isn't a topic that generates shocking headlines. Patricia Biles, workplace violence program coordinator at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, says the compelling issue today for HR professionals is the increase in the number of nonfatal injuries and victimizations in the workplace--from acts of intimidation and mobbing to sexual assaults and domestic violence that spills into offices and adjoining parking lots.

Stephen Paskoff, former labor lawyer and president of Employment Learning Innovations, Inc., a legal training group in Atlanta, says understanding the law is the easy part. "The hard part, the major issue, is making sure we do what we can to prevent violence. Employers often focus on the worst thing that can happen in a legal claim, that the company is too intrusive. They are concerned about giving bad references. They are concerned about invasion-of-privacy and defamation claims.

"But there is no worse thing you can do than fail to act and then some kind of catastrophe happens as a result. Truly, we are focusing too much on the legality and not enough on prevention. My advice is this: Don't be timid. Act. Act. Act."

Like other attorneys, consultants, and researchers who work in the field of workplace violence, Paskoff says that legal protection begins with knowing what's going on in the workplace, recognizing and responding to problem behavior, and making every effort to provide employees with a safe work environment. Many of the most common legal liabilities are related to an employer turning a blind eye to repeated threats, intimidation, and other festering problems that eventually explode into violent acts.

"Many companies are in denial," Biles says. "I'd say that two-thirds of companies in the country don't have any [violence-protection] program. It's not enough to have a written program if you don't train managers and make sure it works."

Despite complexities and the distinctly different specialty areas that make up labor law, experts agree with this basic premise: HR professionals cannot help protect employees from harm--and companies from lawsuits--unless they face behavior problems directly, heed warning signs, train managers in violence prevention, intervene skillfully and quickly, and take all threats seriously.

Referring to the government guidelines established in 1996 for protecting employees from workplace violence, Gary Mathiason, workplace violence law expert and partner at Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy & Mathiason in San Francisco, says, "We've gotten past the stage of having good policies. There has been a cultural revolution in the workplace about what's accepted and what's not. Training programs have helped reduce the number of homicides. Still, intimidation and other nonphysical violence is an enormous, enormous problem, and the effects on the workplace are overwhelming.

"Workplace violence is not just about homicidal clients, or raging day-traders in Atlanta, or disgruntled postal workers," he adds. "What we need is to educate employees and managers about what to look for, what can and should be reported. The worst thing to do legally is to see an escalation and not intervene."

As an example, Mathiason tells about an HR manager who recently contacted him with a gnawing concern. An employee had come to him after visiting a coworker at home. The reporting employee said he was shocked at seeing several weapons. The HR manager doubted that it was a workplace concern because the employee who allegedly had the weapons was soft-spoken and had no disciplinary problems.

Still, the HR manager wondered if there should be some kind of follow-up. At Mathiason's suggestion, the company did launch an investigation. Coworkers were asked if they felt uncomfortable or threatened by anyone at work. Two employees broke into tears and reported repeated death threats to gays and Jews from the employee who had all the guns. The investigation also showed that the employee in question had prior criminal convictions for violent offenses.

These disclosures allowed the company to carefully take action to remove the threatening employee from the workplace and to gain the assistance of law-enforcement officials. It was a serious problem that could have grown far worse, Mathiason says, and illustrates how vital it is to investigate potential threats, and to intervene.

Legal precedents and quagmires