In this podcast, Karen Tynan and Robert Rodriguez—who are the co-chairs of Ogletree Deakins' Workplace Violence Prevention Practice Group—answer the most frequently asked questions (FAQs) on California's workplace violence law. Robert and Karen, both of whom are shareholders in the firm's Sacramento office, review essential training requirements, the importance of maintaining accurate violent incident logs, and best practices for involving employees in developing effective prevention plans to ensure the workplace remains safe and compliant with Senate Bill (SB) No. 553, which went into effect on July 1, 2024.
Transcript
Announcer: Welcome to the Ogletree Deakins Podcast, where we provide listeners with brief discussions about important workplace legal issues. Our podcasts are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. You can subscribe through your favorite podcast service. Please consider rating this podcast so we can get your feedback and improve our programs. Please enjoy the podcast.
Karen Tynan: Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us for the Ogletree Deakins Podcast. My name is Karen Tynan, and I'm a shareholder in the Sacramento, California office and Co-Chair of the Workplace Violence Prevention Practice Group. Here with me today is our Co-Chair in that practice group, Robert Rodriguez, a Sacramento shareholder who's two offices down from me.
Robert Rodriguez: Just enough buffer there.
Karen Tynan: Exactly. We're talking about the top workplace
violence prevention kind of frequently asked questions in 2025.
What are the FAQs we're hearing from California employers? And
this is an important topic for our California businesses, for our
general industry non-healthcare folks.
So, Robert, here's my first, I think this is our top FAQ or in
the top one or two, what are the training requirements? Are we
supposed to do retraining? What kind of training do we have to do
at onboarding? Can you talk about the training requirements and the
kind of questions we've been getting?
Robert Rodriguez: Yeah, absolutely. And this is a great time of
year to be thinking about this for employers out there. We're
getting close to a year since the law has been passed and in
effect, so we've kind of seen some enforcement from Cal/OSHA.
Previously all we had to go on was the text of the law. Now
we've seen some guidance, we've seen some experience. So,
we're getting a lot of questions from employers, and especially
around training. The law requires training when the plan is first
established and then annually thereafter.
It also does have a requirement to do some retraining if
there's a workplace violence hazard that's been identified,
that could either be a physical hazard, like if there's a door
that's not working or a camera system that's been
installed, or it could be a risk from an employee or some other
individual. But in terms of training requirements, the number one
question I'm getting from employers is do I have to do the
whole full robust training by July 1st, 2025, coming up on a year?
Can I just do a refresher? Can I just do an acknowledgement form
that I received training before?
The strictest and most common-sense reading of the law is that you
have to provide training, and it has the specific topics you have
to provide training on, and then it has the timing, it has when
it's first established, and then thereafter. So, there's
really no wiggle room within the law to do a refresher or an
abbreviated training. Do you agree with that?
Karen Tynan: Absolutely. We did a webinar recently, Robert, and there was a pretty pointed question: Why do I have to do the whole training all over again? Can I just do a highlight? And the law doesn't contemplate that.
Robert Rodriguez: Right. Absolutely.
Karen Tynan: It wants those same subjects covered with the same question and answer time, the opportunity to ask questions, and the same subjects. And so, to think that maybe you could just send around an email where people acknowledge it, or you could have a 10-minute training that just says, hey, remember all this stuff really fast? Not going to work. Right?
Robert Rodriguez: Not going to fly. I mean, I don't see in any world where Cal/OSHA would find that compliant with the law.
Karen Tynan: I agree.
Robert Rodriguez: And another question I've been getting is with onboarding or new employees or temporary staff where you have folks who are coming onto your site, either your own employees that are hired mid-year that weren't in either the initial training or the annual one, or if you have temporary staff or if you have security guards. How are we handling that? And unfortunately, the law is very, very vague. There's not a lot of guidance around that, about when you have to train people to onboarding, how that works into the requirement to have basically a live training with interactive questions and answers from a person knowledgeable about the plan. A lot of gray areas. But have you seen that as well? A lot of questions around that?
Karen Tynan: Yes. And here's what I say. Look, the Cal/OSHA inspector is not going to be drastically upset if the person is hired on a Monday and on Tuesday morning they don't have their workplace violence prevention training yet. But here's the thing, if you've hired someone, and you haven't trained them yet, I think you have a problem. And I can't tell you if it's 28 days, if it's 15 days, how many days it is after someone's hired that their onboarding training around workplace violence prevention has to happen.
Robert Rodriguez: Agreed. 100%. Another question we've been getting a lot is around violent incident logs. As you recall, the law has a 300 Log where you have to keep and log each violent incident including very specific details. And so, one question we've had is, can I have one big giant log in our headquarters or in another state for all of our sites in California, or do I need to keep a violent incident log for each work site in California? How does that work?
Karen Tynan: Well, the law didn't get hyper-specific. Unlike
the instructions around your OSHA 300 Log are at each
establishment, the violent incident log simply indicates that it
has to be maintained. And so, what I have interpolated that to mean
is that look, the violent incident log needs to be kept in a way
and in a location where you can retrieve it pretty easily. And one
thing I have seen, let's say there's a company based in
Phoenix, and they think they're going to keep a giant violent
incident log for their 50 stores in California. Well, how are we
going to get that information from California to Phoenix? Who in
Phoenix is responsible for it? If we need to get that log for an
inspector, is that going to be a 10-minute process or a 10-day
process?
So, I don't like the idea of some giant violent incident log
kept in another headquarters kind of place that is more mysterious
and difficult to obtain, or that the log is kept as a subpart of
some program. I've had clients say, well, look, we could keep
the violent incident log as part of our tracking of workers'
comp claims, and we'll just print out all the comp claims that
involve work. No, not going to work. The law contemplates your
violent incident log as a distinctive record-keeping document. You
agree?
Robert Rodriguez: I agree. Yeah. And piggybacking on that, I think for me it makes more sense to have a per-location violent incident log, and the reason being is the law contemplates a work site specific plan. So, Cal/OSHA's investigating or inspecting a workplace violence incident at a store in Santa Clara, what would a violent incident log from maybe Los Angeles have to do with that?
Karen Tynan: Exactly.
Robert Rodriguez: And it may give Cal/OSHA kind of a false sense of actually what's going on in the Santa Clara store.
Karen Tynan: Yes, I agree. So, we do like to see those logs kept kind of per establishment and in a way that is very effective for the location. Now we know we're recording incidents in the violent incident log, these workplace violence incidents. One question we've gotten quite a bit, and it's been a little bit odd is, are animal attacks really covered under SB 553? Because the way workplace violence is defined, it doesn't say animal attacks or this certain type of violence. But in the violent incident log, you have to record animal attacks. So, Robert, are animal attacks really covered?
Robert Rodriguez: And I'm sorry to laugh just because we've been getting this question a lot, and I've been getting it from employers you would expect to get it from, from veterinary offices where they get a dog bite every once in a while or from a delivery service that may get a dog bite or a cat bite every once in a while. The reason I laughed is we had an unusual one recently where somebody was out in the field for construction, and they were attacked by an ostrich, an emu. A very vicious emu.
Karen Tynan: Evidently.
Robert Rodriguez: Evidently. So much so that the person had to get some medical treatment. That was a question: Is, well, is this under the workplace violence log? Obviously, we've got our Cal/OSHA 300 Log, we've got our reportable serious injuries out there. So that's putting that aside. We're just focusing on is this covered under the new workplace violence prevention law? And luckily, Cal/OSHA did put out a frequently asked question, some guidance on this. And generally, what it is, is the animal attack reference in the statute was meant to be where somebody uses an animal as a weapon? So, they're going to sick an animal on you, like an attack dog or an attack emu, maybe. But something where they're using the animal as a weapon, not just generally where you get bit by an animal.
Karen Tynan: So, in your household, Robert, you would have to sick Indy, your big goofy yellow lab, on someone for it to fall under the violent incident log and the law, right?
Robert Rodriguez: Exactly. Yeah. We've got a big goofy golden retriever named Indy, and she is just fantastic with my six-year-old and five-year-old. But yeah, you'd have to be able to sick her on somebody to qualify under the workplace violence law.
Karen Tynan: For sure. So those questions do come up. And you mentioned the vet clinics, and I'm good friends with a dog trainer and with a big facility for law enforcement training. Those questions from those folks right after the law passed, they said, well, gosh, we get cat bites, dog bites, things that happen on almost the daily. And we had to say, hey, wait a second. Those don't really count because you had the dog bite from the frisky chihuahua at the vet clinic. No one's sicked the chihuahua on you. And I'm not trying to give Chihuahuas a bad name. You know I'm a springer spaniel person myself.
Robert Rodriguez: Yes.
Karen Tynan: But we do have to understand that distinction you're talking about. And I think delivery drivers are a big one that face dog bites and things like that. And that's going to be something where you have those scenarios with dog bites, not so much the emu attacks, but the dog bite, where maybe the driver does say, hey, the homeowner was aggressive. I was trying to deliver this package, the washer/dryer from the big home improvement store, and they were irate and sicked their dog on me, or did the dog just happen to come running out and nipped you?
Robert Rodriguez: Get him, Butch.
Karen Tynan: Yeah, exactly.
Robert Rodriguez: So, moving on from animal attacks. Karen, question for you. What kind of ways are employers getting employees involved in developing the required plans and procedures? What have you seen out there?
Karen Tynan: What I see is companies are pretty consistent with their company culture for how they're getting employees involved. So, some companies that have town halls, maybe that's a style of communication within their company. They use town halls to solicit suggestions for improvements, ideas, employee involvement in the workplace violence prevention plan. Some companies use safety meetings. They might use a monthly or quarterly safety meeting to solicit suggestions, some use surveys. So, everybody that's got an email is going to get a survey asking for ideas, feedback, suggestions, that. So, I come back to what that company's culture is for just general safety suggestions or other communications and using that method that is consistent with your company culture because the law doesn't say you have to use X, Y, and Z to have your employees involved in developing the required plans and procedures. It doesn't direct you; you have to set up a workplace violence committee or things like that. Some clients have done that. I come back to the touchstone of the company's identity and culture. What do you think of that, Robert? Is it too vague, or what do you think?
Robert Rodriguez: No, I think it makes sense. And some of the
easiest clients that I worked with for the employee involvement
piece were kind of the heavy industry folks, who already had that
safety committee, and were able to run safety issues through there.
And so, when I asked them, "How are we going to get this
employee involvement 9 times out of 10 in heavy industry," it
would say, "Oh, we're just going to use our safety
committee. We already have the meeting. We're going to just add
this to the agenda and invite anybody who wants to join the safety
committee or safety meeting, as well."
Now also getting aligned with the culture, I worked with a lot of
clients who were kind of in the tech space, in the white-collar
office building workspace, and they were having channels. They were
having dedicated channels where people could bring forth issues or
suggestions. So, I think that really is a good illustration of how
you tailor it to your culture.
Karen Tynan: Good points. And so here we are, 2025, almost a year in. Can you say what type of workplace violence incidents we've been seeing since the law came into effect? What are some of your kind of ideas about incidents so that employers can learn and maybe consider, oh, could these incidents happen in our workplace?
Robert Rodriguez: Yeah. So, I've seen the full spectrum of
workplace violence and workplace violence prevention since the law
came into effect. And I would say that comes with, on the very low
end of the spectrum, where you've got clearly non-threatening
language that somebody reports to HR, and we're clearly able to
say that's not a workplace violence. To all the way, where
we've had murders. Tragically, we've had to deal with
several murders already since July 1st, 2024, up and down
California and everything in between. We've seen physical
assaults between employees. We've seen verbal threats from
employees. And I think one thing to note is now that we have
trained or employers in California have trained their employees on
workplace violence, I think unsurprisingly, you're seeing an
uptick in reports of workplace violence. In most of the trainings
I've seen, it has words to the effect of, if you're not
sure it's workplace violence still report it up to HR. And so,
we're seeing these ones.
For example, I had one recently where I was counseling an HR
manager and the employee one said to employee two, "At the end
of the day, be safe out there; it's not a safe world," in
kind of an ominous voice. And obviously, there's a lot of
ambiguity there. Could this be workplace violence? Maybe.
Obviously, we interviewed the employee and that employee was like,
"No, I didn't mean it like that. I meant it's
dangerous out there on the roads; there's traffic." So,
we're kind of seeing a more uptick in what is workplace
violence. So, a lot of times you get mired down in, hey, is this
actually workplace violence, and is it covered by the new law?
Karen Tynan: I agree. And something else in 2025, Robert, is kind of the threats against C-suites that we see. There's a delicate balance in that, and it certainly involves the general counsel and the big company and maybe the risk managers. And let's just say the scenario is someone's been fired or let go, and they become fixated, angry, upset, whatever term you want to use with maybe the CFO or someone else, the head of a division. And then they're making threats against a person who's pretty high up, who may have visibility in the business world. And working through that with companies with questions like, are we going to hire security for our CFO because he's going to be on the road, or he is not in this gated community, and he feels that his home is vulnerable? Or let's say we have the head of HR for a huge, huge company, and someone can figure out where she lives, and they've been making threats and emails. So, I think that in 2025, being prepared to analyze what will we do if our C-suite folks, our supervisors in a high level, get threats?
Robert Rodriguez: Absolutely. And like you mentioned, it's just been kind of on an uptick this year with some animosity towards corporations and animosity towards executives in general. I definitely predict that will continue to uptick in 2025 and 2026. And these are real-world situations that Karen and I and our team have had to deal with. We've had to do threat assessments on the fly of a former employee threatening a CEO. We've had to interface with law enforcement and the FBI and get them on board to help us out. And so, it's a very challenging issue, and I think that an issue we have to take very seriously.
Karen Tynan: For sure. And so, I want to ask, we've talked about incidents and the logs and training, so I've gotten quite a few people that have asked me about, gosh, well, can I revise my plan before the year's up? When should I revise my plan? And my inclination is, well, you should revise your plan when you need to if it's more frequent than annually. Do you agree?
Robert Rodriguez: Yeah, I do agree. Yeah, absolutely. We don't want to wait on this. If we identify a gap, it should be taken care of immediately. And in fact, the law actually requires that. That if you identify a workplace hazard and that be a gap in your plan, then you're required to do a revision and also conduct potentially training to folks if that is appropriate. So, absolutely. It's not just annually, it's kind of a, and I hate to use the term because from law school, but it's a living, breathing document. We've got to make sure that this is staying up to date, and that as events happen, we're reviewing our plan and saying, did we miss something? Is there a gap? Do we need to make some adjustments?
Karen Tynan: I think you're right. And revising and updating your plan can be based on an incident that happens. It can be based on an employee suggestion. And I do agree the cliche of the living, breathing document, but it does apply here, and employers should plan on the annual revision as needed, and as appropriate. So, don't just figure you're going to trounce it out every July 1st and update it with a new revision date. It is much more vigorous than that.
Robert Rodriguez: Absolutely. And another question I've been getting a lot is about investigations and confidentiality. So, can we keep our workplace violence prevention investigations confidential?
Karen Tynan: Broadly, yes. And I analogize our workplace violence investigations to sexual harassment investigations that we carry out in a confidential way. And usually that involves interviewing witnesses. It may involve reviewing video, it may involve law enforcement, even. But what's important to remember is SB 553 also requires the results of the investigation to be shared. Well, but it's a little vague about that, right, Robert?
Robert Rodriguez: Right.
Karen Tynan: And so, part of what employers have had to do this past year is figure out how are we going to maintain confidentiality, and how will we share the results with impacted or affected individuals? And I do like to remind folks when you're thinking about investigation confidentiality, that in California we have a privacy right that's in our constitution. And being mindful that your investigation could reveal domestic violence issues, it could reveal medical issues if someone's injured or attacked-
Robert Rodriguez: Mental health issues.
Karen Tynan: Mental health issues. And so, I like for investigations to have that robust privacy protections and for people to consider how they will handle information, medical information, mental health information, domestic violence information in a way that respects the privacy and complies with California laws.
Robert Rodriguez: Great points. So, in closing, can you talk about best practices related to these frequently asked questions we've been getting?
Karen Tynan: Okay, so everybody re-listen to the podcast, this is your best practices. Hey, make sure you're getting that training done. I think that untrained employees are a risk, and training should be annually, however you track it, make sure it's happening. I love to see a very competent person keeping the violent incident log. I think that reviewing materials on the Cal/OSHA website, making sure you're looking forward to see what you need to do in the future is great. And also, staying up to date on technology and how you can use technology in this. Whether, Robert, you were talking about ways people get alerted to workplace violence, whether it's radios, things like that. So, take that and try to make some action items, make an action list from this podcast, and self-audit yourself and see what you can do to be compliant as the year of SB 553 comes to its first anniversary, July 2025.
Robert Rodriguez: All great points. Well, thanks, Karen, for being here today, and thanks for listening. Look for our blog articles on Ogletree.com, check out our practice page, the Workplace Violence Prevention Practice Group, on that same website, and also look out for our webinars. Thanks for listening, and stay safe out there.
Karen Tynan: Thanks, everybody.
Announcer: Thank you for joining us on the Ogletree Deakins Podcast. You can subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts or through your favorite podcast service. Please consider rating and reviewing so that we may continue to provide the content that covers your needs. And remember, the information in this podcast is for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as legal advice.
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.
