When California’s Workplace Violence Prevention Law (SB 553) goes into effect July 1, it will bring sweeping changes to how businesses statewide prevent and navigate incidents of workplace violence. Barring a few exceptions, all companies doing business in California will be required to create and implement frameworks for preventing violence in the workplace and documenting it should it occur. With the implementation date fast approaching, compliance leaders have a limited window to prepare their organizations. BDO’s James MacDonnell explores the details.
Laws designed to ensure the safety and security of employees are nothing new. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 required employers to provide their employees with a place of employment that is “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.” In recent years, many states have implemented laws seeking to curb workplace violence within specific industries.
However, California’s SB 553 is the first law of its kind in the U.S. when you consider the breadth and requirements of the law. As such, there is significant potential for confusion and misunderstanding around the compliance requirements. The first step will be for companies to understand if they fall under the new law’s jurisdiction.
If your organization has 10 or more employees at a worksite “at any given time” in the state of California, or fewer if it’s a public company, it must comply with SB 553’s requirements — regardless of whether the company has its headquarters or a designated office in the state.
For organizations required to adhere to SB 553, it is imperative to understand the extensive scope of workplace violence delineated within the law. When considering physical workplace violence, California’s Division of Occupational Health and Safety (Cal/OSHA) cites four types of physical violence covered by the law.
- Type 1: Committed by a person who has no legitimate business at the worksite and includes violence incited by anyone who enters the workplace or approaches workers with the intent to commit a crime. An example would be a robbery taking place at a retail establishment.
- Type 2: Directed at employees by customers, clients and other people who initially entered the worksite for a legitimate business purpose. One example could be an intoxicated patron exhibiting violent behavior toward a bartender who refuses service of additional alcoholic beverages.
- Type 3: An act of violence against an employee by a present or former employee or supervisor. This could be an on-site altercation between two employees.
- Type 4: Committed in the workplace by a person who is not employed there but has personal involvement with an employee. For example, if an employee’s partner arrives at the workplace and initiates an altercation.
While physical violence is a key focus, the law also accounts for other types of incidents and addresses “any act of violence or threat of violence that occurs in a place of employment,” including the threat of physical force and incidents involving a threat or use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon.
Determining what constitutes “the workplace” may be difficult to discern. Should an employee send threatening text messages to a colleague and that colleague report the messages to a supervisor, the exchange could be considered a violent incident.
Following California’s New Workplace Violence Laws Is Good for All Businesses
Laws going into effect in July provide solid framework for implementing violence prevention policies
Read moreDetailsBut what defines an incident? The law states that workplace violence includes any incident “that results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, injury, psychological trauma, or stress, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury.
Reasonable people could debate whether an incident does or does not have a high likelihood of causing stress or psychological trauma. Furthermore, some employers are struggling to define what constitutes a workplace in a physical context and how far that context extends. Will offices with adjacent parking garages be expected to employ security guards at night to better safeguard employees after hours?
These questions are even more complicated when considering digital exchanges and threats of violence. If someone with no association with the company sends a threatening text to a worker while they are in the office, does that constitute a workplace violence incident?
Organizations should remain flexible while building their frameworks as lawmakers provide greater clarity around the application of the law. Some ambiguity remains regarding what the law will require for diverse workplace settings, such as shared co-working spaces.
Additionally, compliance leaders must consider how the guidance will affect people who don’t work in a single office setting, such as those who work outside on a jobsite all day or consultants who spend their days visiting clients’ offices offsite. Should they follow their employer’s guidance or the guidance put in place at their clients’ offices?
These and other questions must be considered as organizations work to achieve proper implementation.
Setting your organization up for success
To prepare for the law, organizations should create a dedicated team to own and oversee preparation and implementation of their framework for compliance. Human resources, security, legal and compliance teams should all play a role. For larger organizations, there will likely be more stakeholders across the company who should be involved. Aligning a response to this new law with existing workplace safety policies may be a complex process if an organization works across multiple offices and supports a mix of hybrid and in-person workplace models, even if they already have some workplace violence prevention measures in place.
After gaining an understanding of the law and its implications for their businesses, organizations should then build out a workplace violence prevention framework. Under SB 553, filling out forms and sharing a training video will not be enough; pre-existing workplace violence training videos that were made to cover regulations in other jurisdictions will not be suitable. The training content used by each organization should align with and reference their specific policies.
To effectively develop a violence prevention program, businesses must thoroughly understand the unique risks posed to their individual workplace environment. For example, a restaurant or retail establishment might be prone to certain types of workplace violence that an office is less likely to experience, such as robbery.
Additionally, a corporate office needs a significantly different plan than an agriculture business with a mix of office employees and trade workers, and organizations without a headquarters or office will have to set up training programs that are fully remotely accessible.
Depending on employee demographics, some organizations should be prepared to share training and guidelines in multiple languages and in accessible formats. Regardless, most organizations need to consider how they could be held accountable for incidents that occur on-site, after hours or sometimes even off-premises. Accounting for these considerations while keeping overall employee safety top of mind will better position organizations for compliance once the law comes into effect in July.
If an organization fails to comply with SB 553, there are several potential repercussions. Notably, willful violation could result in companies being fined $18,000 or more. Additionally, businesses could have their licenses and permits revoked and will open themselves to liability and litigation.
What comes next?
In addition to SB 553, workplace violence prevention laws outside of California are beginning to emerge. New York’s S8358 will mandate the implementation of statewide workplace violence prevention programs within retail establishments. While it has similarities to California’s SB 553, including employee training requirements and an emphasis on incident documentation, the law is specifically focused on increasing retail employee safety. For example, some retailers may now be required to install panic buttons and conduct de-escalation training for employees. The goal of this legislation is primarily to safeguard retail employees and make them feel more comfortable at work as in-store incidents have increased in recent years. For now, California is the only state with statewide workplace violence legislation of this far-reaching nature, but there is the potential for more industry-specific legislation to emerge in other states.
Businesses required to comply with the law due to their presence in California should be prepared to frequently assess the impact of their strategy and adjust it based on employee feedback and overall effectiveness. Organizations that don’t revisit their framework are more likely to be at risk of legal consequences and employee endangerment. Every business, even those not covered by SB 553, should nonetheless observe the effects of the law on California businesses and determine if they wish to update their frameworks. In doing so, businesses can help protect their employees while also creating an opportunity to get ahead of potential regulatory change.
James MacDonnell is a principal in BDO's Washington, D.C. area office. He is a risk management, business continuity and crisis management professional with more than 18 years of experience supporting Fortune 100 clients and federal agencies prepare for and respond to crises and emerging risks. He has designed enterprise risk management, business continuity and crisis management programs involving diverse stakeholders in support of commercial, national security and military clients. He has experience providing crisis response support during real-world events across multiple threat vectors including product recall, extortion events, workplace violence, cyber-attacks, natural disasters and corporate misconduct events. 
