ARTICLE
5 October 2026

California Expands And Modernizes Workplace Violence Restraining Orders

JL
Jackson Lewis P.C.

Contributor

Focused on employment and labor law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.’s 1,100+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-functioning workforces that are engaged, stable and diverse, and share our clients’ goals to emphasize inclusivity and respect for the contribution of every employee.
California has expanded employers' ability to obtain workplace violence restraining orders when threats target entire worksites or groups of employees rather than specific individuals. New procedural requirements will also modernize how these protective orders are filed and heard, including mandatory remote appearance options and electronic filing capabilities.
United States California Employment and HR

Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1961 and AB 2179 on September 30, 2026. The companion measures amend Section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to expand when employers may seek workplace violence restraining orders (WVROs) and to modernize how those proceedings may be filed and heard.

Under prior law, an employer seeking a WVRO generally was required to identify an employee who had suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence that could reasonably be construed to have occurred, or to be carried out, at the workplace. That framework created difficulty, at times, when a threat targeted a worksite or group of employees rather than a particular individual.

AB 1961 addresses that issue by allowing an employer to file a petition to seek a temporary restraining order and an order after hearing on behalf of all employees at a workplace, or at a location where a group of employees performs its primary job duties, when harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence is directed at that workplace or location. The employer need not name a specific employee in the petition. A court may issue an order restricting the respondent from telephoning or otherwise contacting the workplace or location, coming within a specified distance of it, or engaging in other conduct necessary to make the order effective.

AB 2179 adds procedural changes beginning January 1, 2028. Once these changes take effect, a party or witness may appear remotely at a WVRO hearing, and a superior court may not charge a party a fee to appear remotely. Each superior court must develop local rules and instructions for remote appearances and post them on its website, and the Judicial Council must develop the necessary forms and rules by that date.

Also beginning January 1, 2028, courts that receive WVRO petitions must permit the petitions and related filings to be submitted electronically. When a petitioner files electronically, the court must electronically provide the request, notice of the hearing date, copies for service on the respondent, and any temporary restraining order that is granted, unless the petitioner elects to obtain those documents from the court in physical form.

The two laws contain coordination language because both amend the same statute. Accordingly, AB 1961’s expanded authority to seek workplace-wide relief takes effect January 1, 2027, while AB 2179’s remote-appearance and electronic-filing requirements commence January 1, 2028. The Judicial Council also must adopt or modify forms for workplace-wide petitions by January 1, 2028.

Employers should review their workplace violence response protocols and identify who will coordinate with legal counsel, security personnel, and law enforcement when a threat affects a worksite or group of employees. Employers considering a WVRO should preserve evidence of the threat and consult counsel regarding the applicable evidentiary, notice, service, and filing requirements. If you have questions about AB 1961, AB 2179, or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More