Skip to main content

Employee Threatens Violence in the Workplace...Now What?


Recently, a situation came across my desk in which an employee threatened violence in the workplace.  Now every situation or threat is different and not necessarily handled the same way (as any good HR representative would tell you).  While this resource is not the definitive guideline on the topic and not intended to serve as legal advice (those experiencing a similar situation should consult their own HR representative and/or employment law attorney for guidance), it provides a framework that can be referred to when needed.


A Threat of Violence is Made in the Workplace

So with that out of the way, let us address the matter head on.  An employee threatens violence in the workplace (whether it be assault, battery, homicide, etc.).  The question then arises:  What should I, as the employer, do when an employee threatens violence in the workplace?  As the Department of Labor notes, violence or threats of violence in the workplace are unacceptable behavior.  As a result, established protocols and procedures are useful in these type of situations.  In instances where an employer has a workplace manual, a policy that prohibits violence and threats of violence should stipulate that these threats should be immediately reported to management or a specific supervisor.  


Assess the Threat

At this point, management would be wise to assess the threat to determine a course of action.  If the threat is urgent, it might be appropriate to evacuate the office/workplace, alert key personnel of the threat, and/or call law enforcement, among other steps.  This immediate threat of violence situation is case sensitive and should be handled as management or HR sees appropriate.  If the threat is determined not to be "immediate", an employer might not feel the need to take such urgent steps at the outset.


Investigate the Threat

Regardless of whether the threat is immediate or not, an employer would likely conduct an investigation to further assess the scope of the threat of violence.  (Again, the nature of the threat will likely dictate how long an investigation could occur.)  If policies and procedures are already in place for such an investigation, management will likely follow what is in place.  Workplace investigations of threats of violence would likely entail talking with other employees who heard or saw the threat, determining the tone of the threat, who/what the threat was made toward, and other salient facts.  Documentation of witness statements is also useful while the situation is still fresh in the minds of those who heard or saw the threat.  The passage of time (or allowing employees to discuss the situation with each other) could distort or color their memory of the event.

As well, it is likely a good idea to discuss the situation with the employee who actually made the threat.  Whether this discussion occurs in person or over the phone likely depends upon the situation and the nature of the threat.  However, getting all "sides" of the story (and documenting every discussion) is useful for an employer to get a feel for the situation, determine how to proceed, and establish a course of action.  I would caution that even an employee who "jokingly" made a threat of violence should be taken seriously.  (Remember how airports have a policy in place that even "joking" threats are taken seriously?  Employers would be wise to implement this policy as well.)


Dealing With the Threat

So long as a credible threat is identified, the employer would be wise to implement steps to ensure the safety of the other workers and protect the workplace.  (Even if a credible threat is not found to exist, this could be a good time for an employer to reevaluate the safety and security of the workplace and implement any needed changes.)  An employer may choose to add locks to doors, change pass codes, allow only certain employees or personnel to have keys to the office, or even implement a physical security presence in the office.  As always, if an employer believes calling law enforcement because of the threat is needed, that is certainly appropriate in any given situation.

In addition, an employer might find sufficient grounds exist to terminate the employee for violence or the threat of violence in the workplace.  Should this occur, it might be a good idea to have security present when the termination occurs (if the employer is concerned the employee will act out in response to the termination.)  As well, documentation of any investigation surrounding the threat (as noted above) could prove vital if the terminated employee attempted to sue.  Any good HR representative should take steps to preserve the investigation in the event the employer's motives are called into question.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations