In the complex world of corporate responsibility, crafting effective threat management and workplace violence (WPV) policies is not just a matter of safety — it's a critical legal safeguard. With court cases related to WPV often spanning years, robust threat management programs can stand as a powerful defense, as courts evaluate whether an organization had a comprehensive, well-resourced program in place and if it effectively identified and addressed risks before an incident.
Understanding the Legal Stakes: Court Case Timelines and Impact
Workplace violence (WPV) and threat management cases carry profound legal stakes when they reach the courtroom, often unfolding over years and exposing organizations to intense scrutiny over their safety protocols. These cases not only highlight the tragic human cost of such incidents but also serve as critical evaluations of an organization’s duty of care and preparedness at the time of the event. Courts regularly assess whether appropriate policies were in place, adequately implemented, and effective in preventing violence, with outcomes that can result in significant financial penalties and reputational damage.
When exploring the legal ramifications of WPV and the prolonged court battles that often ensue, the case of Cleveland v. Taft Union High School District, a case that took nearly a decade to resolve, is highly illustrative. The incident at issue in the Taft case originated from a 2013 school shooting in Taft, California, where a student, after a year of escalating threats, wounded one classmate and targeted another. Despite early reports of threats in 2012, subsequent warning signs were not reassessed or addressed with parental involvement. After a decade-long legal battle, concluding in 2022, the California Court of Appeals upheld Taft Union’s 54% liability for $3.8 million in damages, citing failures in collective threat assessment, communication, and ongoing monitoring. Expert testimony noted that proper care could have prevented the incident, emphasizing to courts the necessity of dynamic threat management and duty of care in determining liability.
"Schools are unique due to the special duty of care because of the student-teacher or student-professional relationship. When events like this occur, they inevitably bring threat management into focus,” said Raymond Fleck, Global Director – Pinkerton Threat Management Group. “In this particular case, the absence of an effective threat management program was one of the most significant findings. The initial threat assessment wasn’t conducted collectively by the team. Instead, it was handled by just one person, which undermined the process; exacerbated by the fact that this person didn't communicate with the subject's parent.”
The Taft Union case set a legal precedent for evaluating threat management programs, particularly in schools. However, schools are not the only ones affected.
“In the last five years, we have seen a growing demand for litigation support services, particularly from law firms addressing workplace violence issues. Threat management and workplace violence prevention policies are being tested in courts,” said Raymond.
Defining Threat Management Policies and Their Legal Resilience
A threat management policy is a structured framework within a WPV prevention plan that is designed to identify, assess, and mitigate potential risks of violence or harmful behavior within an organization. Unlike broader WPV policies, which also focus on response and recovery post-incident, threat management emphasizes prevention through proactive monitoring, behavioral analysis, and early intervention.
It’s critical to acknowledge, however, that even with the most proactive plans to control violence, there remains a risk that a violent event could still occur. No system can guarantee complete prevention. That said, having a robust threat management system in place serves a dual purpose: it significantly reduces the potential for such events by addressing risks early, and it can also limit the impact of a violent incident if it does happen, through preparedness and structured response protocols.
In court, a well-implemented threat management policy can stand as a powerful defense. Courts evaluate whether an organization had a program in place, whether it was adequately resourced, and whether it was effective in identifying and addressing risks before they escalated. Thorough documentation of threat assessments, employee training, and interdepartmental coordination can demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to prevent violence. Additionally, aligning with recognized industry standards and engaging credible expert witnesses can further validate the policy’s strength, potentially reducing liability.
Crafting Effective Workplace Violence Policies: Lessons from California’s SB 553
California’s Senate Bill 553 (SB 553), a pioneering piece of legislation on WPV prevention signed into law in September 2023, includes a significant threat management component as part of its comprehensive workplace violence (WPV) prevention mandate for most employers in the state.
Under SB 553, employers are required to develop and implement a written WPV prevention plan that must include procedures for identifying and evaluating workplace hazards, which inherently involves threat assessment and management. This component emphasizes proactively recognizing potential risks through regular workplace assessments tailored to specific worksite conditions and employee dynamics. Employers must address identified threats by implementing corrective measures, such as enhanced security protocols or employee training on recognizing and reporting warning signs.
Additionally, the law requires maintaining a violent incident log to document threats and incidents, ensuring a systematic approach to tracking and managing risks over time. This threat management focus aims to prevent violence before it occurs, aligning with broader safety goals and providing a framework that can help demonstrate due diligence in legal contexts.
"California leads the way in workplace violence prevention. SB 553 offers a blueprint for crafting policies that are both effective and legally defensible. Other states are following California’s example,” said Raymond. “It's only a matter of time before every state has similar policies.”
Duty of Care and Establishing a Standard of Care
At the heart of WPV litigation lies the concept of duty of care — the legal obligation to provide a safe environment and provide for the well-being of employees, clients, and others within an organization’s sphere. Adopting a standard of care, which includes a multidisciplinary approach to threat management, is vital for creating defensible actions. This means integrating expertise across departments to address threats holistically, so that policies are not only reactive but also preventive.
For example, HR typically drafts and communicates policies while handling investigations. Health and Safety ensures compliance with regulations and implements protective measures, while Security focuses on immediate threat response and monitoring. This multidisciplinary, interdepartmental synergy ensures all aspects of safety are covered, presenting a united front in both practice and legal defense.
“There should be a standard of care that organizations operate under if they are assessing threats of violence. If we're going to engage in such weighty discussions where life safety is involved, we should approach it in a manner that reflects the risk,” Raymond said.
Pinkerton’s Threat Management standard of care, for example, is built on five key pillars: defensible, consistent, humane, multidisciplinary, and science-based. These principles ensure compliance with legal standards, reduce bias through rigorous processes, preserve dignity for all involved, integrate diverse expertise from HR to law enforcement, and ground strategies in empirical research. This comprehensive approach not only enhances workplace safety but also provides a robust defense in court, demonstrating an organization’s proactive commitment to duty of care and risk reduction.
Navigating Workplace Violence Complexity and Reducing Legal Liability
WPV cases often involve multiple lawsuits and parties, creating intricate legal challenges. Beyond managing liability, organizations must address the aftermath — supporting affected employees, conducting thorough investigations, and preventing recurrence. Proactive threat management, by identifying and mitigating risks before they escalate, significantly reduces the likelihood of lawsuits and enhances workplace safety.
"This is all part of risk reduction. When you're proactive, you're in a much stronger position. It even impacts the culture within an organization. When people treat each other humanely, the workplace becomes a far better environment for everyone," said Raymond.
Preparing for Litigation
Raymond emphasized that there are steps organizations can take to prepare for potential litigation, beginning with a defensible threat management program.
- Creating Defensible Programs: Implement policies and procedures that are justifiable and can withstand legal scrutiny.
- Employee Training: Employees need to be aware of the policies and know how to respond to incidents, which can be crucial in defending the organization in court.
- Documentation: Document all policies, training sessions, and incidents meticulously to provide evidence in court.
- Expert Witnesses: Choose expert witnesses wisely. Their credibility and expertise can significantly impact the outcome of the case.
Organizational Risk Reduction and Legal Preparedness
As organizations strive to protect their workforce, the dual focus on WPV and threat management policies becomes a cornerstone of corporate responsibility. Drawing from frameworks like California’s SB 553, companies can build comprehensive, defensible strategies and a standard of care that prioritizes prevention and readiness. By fostering a culture of safety through clear policies, regular training, and proactive threat management, organizations not only safeguard people but also strengthen their position against legal challenges. The path to a secure workplace is ongoing — commit to it, and the benefits will resonate both in daily operations and in the courtroom.
