Most California employers will be required to implement a workplace violence prevention plan as of July 1.
The new requirement stems from a state senate bill enacted last fall in response to incidents of mass shootings and workplace violence occurring in California and across the US. State Sen. Dave Cortese sponsored the bill in the aftermath of a 2021 deadly shooting at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in San Jose, where an employee killed nine colleagues before taking his own life.
There are a limited number of exceptions to the rule—healthcare facilities, for example, are already required to comply with a Cal/OSHA workplace violence prevention standard specific to their industry. Remote employees who don’t work from a location overseen by their employer, as well as employees located outside California, are also exempt.
New requirements. Under the legislation, which amends California’s existing labor code, employers are required to “establish, implement, and maintain” a workplace violence prevention plan as part of their injury and illness prevention program, which is already mandated by Cal/OSHA.
The plan must include the names or job titles of the people responsible for implementing and maintaining it, as well as a number of details pertaining to how it will be carried out. It should detail procedures for responding to and communicating with employees about workplace violence, protocols for reporting violent incidents, and plans to conduct an annual review of violent incidents that occur within a facility, department, or operation. Active employees and their collective bargaining representatives (if applicable) are expected to be involved with the plan.
Training. California employers must train all their employees on the plan, including an explanation of “hazard identification and evaluation procedures, general and personal safety measures the employer has implemented,” as well as details on how workers can communicate concerns about violence.
The training should also cover:
- How workers can recognize the potential for violence, as well as seek assistance to prevent or respond to it when necessary
- Strategies for avoiding physical harm
- How to recognize warnings about violence, such as “mass casualty threats” and how to use “identified escape routes” or locations designated for shelter
- How to prepare and respond to an active shooter scenario
- How to prepare and respond to shoplifting
- Details on the role private security personnel play, if applicable
- Instructions for reporting violent incidents to law enforcement
- Details on resources for employees who have experienced violent incidents; this might include employee assistance programs, for example
- Opportunity for a Q&A with someone who is knowledgeable about the workplace violence prevention plan
Quick-to-read HR news & insights
From recruiting and retention to company culture and the latest in HR tech, HR Brew delivers up-to-date industry news and tips to help HR pros stay nimble in today’s fast-changing business environment.
Employers should offer new training when new hazards arise, or the business introduces “new equipment or work practices.”
Keeping track of violent incidents. Employers are required to keep a detailed log every time there is a violent incident in their workplace, including details on the response and investigation that followed. Such records should be maintained for a minimum of five years, according to the legislation.
They should also keep records about training for a minimum of one year.
This documentation should be made available to employees and their collective bargaining representatives if they request it.
What this means for California employers. Kate Colberg, a lead crisis and risk advisor with WTW North America, wrote in a March 7 white paper that the consulting firm had been hearing from clients that were still not meeting “numerous aspects” of the legislation, despite having “well considered workplace violence programs in place already.”
California employers that must comply with the legislation, she added, were advised to “conduct a gap analysis of their existing programs against the legislation.”