SHARE

FEATURED STORY July 07, 2022

California Employers Soon May Be Subject to a Workplace Violence Safety Standard

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content. Your subscription is free.
Subscribe Now

On May 17, 2022, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) released a draft regulation for workplace violence prevention that applies to all California employers, with only limited exceptions. Cal/OSHA is seeking input from interested parties by July 18, 2022.

Currently, Cal/OSHA's workplace violence regulations only apply to employers in the health care industry. For non-health-care industries, Cal/OSHA regulates workplace violence using the employer's obligation to regularly identify and evaluate workplace hazards under Section 3203 of Cal/OSHA's Injury and Illness Prevention Standard.

Though Cal/OSHA has sought comment regarding its draft regulation, it is uncertain how quickly the rule-making process will proceed.

The draft regulation defines workplace violence broadly. It includes threats or use of physical force against an employee that results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, injury, psychological trauma, or stress, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury. It also includes an incident involving the threat or use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, including the use of common objects as weapons, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury.

Under the draft regulation, employers would need to:

  • Establish, implement, and maintain an effective Workplace Violence Prevention Program, similar to the requirements for an Injury Illness Prevention Program. The plan would have to include, among other things:

-- Procedures to communicate with employees regarding workplace violence matters (i.e., how to report a violent incident or concern of violence and how such concerns will be invested)

-- Procedures to respond to workplace violence emergencies (i.e., how employees will be alerted about workplace violence emergencies, and evacuation and sheltering plans)

-- Procedures to identify workplace violence hazards, including periodic inspections to identify unsafe conditions and work practices

  • Develop a procedure for responding to a workplace emergency.
  • Provide training to employees regarding the contents of the Workplace Violence Prevention Program and handling workplace violence.
  • Record incidents of violence in an incident log. However, employers who have not had a workplace violence incident in the last five years would not need to maintain a log.

As employers monitor Cal/OSHA's rulemaking process for a workplace violence standard, they may wish to identify factors in the workplace for potential workplace violence. Should such factors exist, employers may consider incorporating information, policies, and procedures into their already existing Injury and Illness Prevention Programs, such as (1) a system for communicating with employees about workplace security hazards and how employees can report workplace violence or workplace violence concerns; (2) procedures to periodically inspect the worksite to identify potential workplace security hazards; (3) procedures for investigating instances of workplace violence or threats of workplace violence; and (4) procedures for correcting workplace security hazards to ensure employees are protected from physical retaliation for reporting threats of workplace violence.

 

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Greenberg Traurig

Data transfers from a controller in the EEA, to another controller in the EEA, to a processor outside of the EEA

By David A. Zetoony Greenberg Traurig August 02 , 2022

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Workplace Safety Review: Episode 28 | Interview with Nadine Mancini

By Michael T. Taylor Greenberg Traurig August 01 , 2022

In this episode, Mike Taylor and Adam Roseman talk to Nadine Mancini, General Counsel for the federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in Washington, D.C.

3rd Circuit Issues Practical Death Knell to Nationwide FLSA Collective Actions Involving Employers Not Subject to General Jurisdiction in Circuit

By James N. Boudreau Greenberg Traurig July 29 , 2022

On July 26, 2022, in a win for employers, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a precedential opinion in Christa Fischer, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., et al, No. 21-1683, affirming a decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that refused to allow two opt-in plaintiffs to join a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because the proposed plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid overtime had no connection to Pennsylvania.

More From Employment Law

Pennsylvania's New Requirements for Tipped and Salaried Employees: Common Questions

By Stephanie J. Peet Jackson Lewis P.C. August 01 , 2022

Some of the most-common questions that employers have asked about these new rules are discussed in this special report. (For an overview, see our article, Pennsylvania Regulatory Commission Approves Expansive Tipped Employee Regulations.)

Workplace Safety Review: Episode 28 | Interview with Nadine Mancini

By Michael T. Taylor Greenberg Traurig August 01 , 2022

In this episode, Mike Taylor and Adam Roseman talk to Nadine Mancini, General Counsel for the federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in Washington, D.C.

3rd Circuit Issues Practical Death Knell to Nationwide FLSA Collective Actions Involving Employers Not Subject to General Jurisdiction in Circuit

By James N. Boudreau Greenberg Traurig July 29 , 2022

On July 26, 2022, in a win for employers, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a precedential opinion in Christa Fischer, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., et al, No. 21-1683, affirming a decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that refused to allow two opt-in plaintiffs to join a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because the proposed plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid overtime had no connection to Pennsylvania.

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...