Employer Responsibility When Employees Commit Assault or Murder in the Workplace
Are employers legally responsible for employee’s criminal behavior?
Nearly 400,000 aggravated assaults and 350 murders occur in the workplace each year. In a growing trend, victims and the families of victims are suing employers when employees hurt or kill. Are employers responsible for employees violence? Well, it all depends.
Employers can be held liable for workplace violence under several legal theories, often depending on the circumstances surrounding the violence, the employer's relationship with the employee involved, and the steps the employer took to prevent such incidents. Here’s a breakdown of these factors:
1. Nature of the Assault
Intentional Acts vs. Negligent Acts: If an assault is intentional and perpetrated by an employee within the scope of their employment, employers may face what is called “vicarious liability.” Vicarious liability is a legal principle whereby one party (typically an employer) is held liable for the actions or misconduct of another party (typically an employee), even if the employer did not directly commit the act. In an employment context, vicarious liability applies when an employee’s actions, committed within the scope of their job duties or employment, result in harm or damage to others. This liability is based on the employer-employee relationship, where the employer is considered responsible for the actions taken by employees as part of their job role.
Employers can also be held responsible via vicarious liability if the violent act occurred in a setting where the employer had some control or was expected to ensure safety (e.g., a supervisor assaulting a subordinate during work hours). For acts outside of employment, an employer may still be liable if the employer negligently hired or retained a violent employee.
Foreseeability of Harm: Courts assess whether the violence was foreseeable based on prior incidents, complaints, or patterns of behavior. If an employer knew or should have known of the risk of violence (e.g., an employee has a known history of aggression), they may be more likely to be found liable.
2. Employer-Employee Relationship
Direct vs. Indirect Employment: Employers have a more substantial duty to prevent violence by direct employees, though they may also bear responsibility for contractors or temporary staff depending on the level of control exercised over their work and behavior. Generally, greater control over an individual’s role increases the likelihood of employer liability.
Supervisory or Managerial Role: If the assailant was in a supervisory role, courts often view the employer’s responsibility as greater due to the potential for abuse of power. Assaults involving individuals in authority positions (e.g., supervisors, team leads) might indicate a failure in oversight if the employer was aware of the risk but took no action.
3. Reasonable Steps to Prevent Workplace Violence
Policies and Procedures: Employers are expected to implement anti-violence policies, offer reporting mechanisms, and establish procedures for handling complaints. Lack of a formal policy or an inadequate response to previous reports may indicate negligence.
Background Checks and Screening: Employers should perform background checks and consider prior behavior to assess risk, especially in roles with significant responsibility or interaction with vulnerable groups. Failing to screen or investigate an employee’s background could lead to liability if the violence could have been prevented through such measures.
Training and Awareness Programs: Providing regular training on workplace violence prevention can demonstrate the employer's commitment to a safe work environment. Training in conflict resolution and de-escalation, for example, can help prevent incidents. Employers can also be held responsible if they neglected to offer adequate training on recognizing and handling warning signs.
4. Employer Liability Considerations
Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision: If an employer knew or should have known of an employee’s violent tendencies, they could be liable under these negligence theories. Negligent hiring applies if the employer hired someone with a history of violence without adequate screening. Negligent retention applies if an employer continued to employ an individual despite known violent behavior. Negligent supervision applies if the employer did not adequately oversee the employee’s behavior.
Workplace Environment: Employers must also ensure a safe environment under OSHA and other labor regulations. Unsafe conditions, such as lack of security in high-risk areas or ignoring reported threats, can lead to liability if these conditions contribute to violence.
The employer’s responsibility centers on taking reasonable and proactive steps to maintain a safe workplace. The liability risk increases if violence is foreseeable, preventable, or if the employer fails to meet reasonable standards of care in hiring, retaining, or supervising employees.
Merrell Strategy assists clients in workplace violence situations, both in helping employees and employers depending on the situation. Reach out if you would like more information about workplace violence incidents and advanced preventative planning.
