Vident Partners provides vetted workplace violence prevention expert witnesses for cases involving General Duty Clause citations, healthcare and social service assaults, threat assessment and termination protocol failures, California SB 553 plan compliance, and employer liability for foreseeable violence. Request a referral today.
Find a Workplace Violence Prevention Expert →Overview
Workplace violence litigation sits at the intersection of occupational safety, security management, and employment law, and the governing framework is unusual: there is no federal standard directly on point. OSHA defines workplace violence as any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening behavior that occurs at the work site, and identifies elevated risk for workers who exchange money with the public, delivery and rideshare drivers, healthcare professionals, social assistance workers, public service and customer service workers, law enforcement, and those who work alone or in small groups -- while stating plainly that there are currently no specific OSHA standards for workplace violence 1.
In the absence of a specific standard, enforcement runs through the General Duty Clause. Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act requires each employer to furnish to each of its employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm 2. That single sentence carries the entire federal case: a citation or a negligence theory must establish that violence was a recognized hazard in that workplace, that it was causing or likely to cause serious harm, and that a feasible means of abatement existed. Expert testimony is generally directed at exactly those elements -- prior incident history, industry recognition of the hazard, and whether the abatement measures the employer declined were feasible and effective.
OSHA's substantive guidance is concentrated in Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence for Healthcare and Social Service Workers, which organizes a violence prevention program around five components: management commitment and worker participation, worksite analysis and hazard identification, hazard prevention and control, safety and health training, and recordkeeping and program evaluation 3. Because the guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, they function in litigation the way industry standards do: as evidence of what a reasonable employer in that sector knew and could have done. OSHA maintains a dedicated healthcare workplace violence resource reflecting the concentration of enforcement activity in that sector 5.
Several states have moved past guidance to mandate. California Labor Code section 6401.9, operative for most employers on and after July 1, 2024, requires a written workplace violence prevention plan that is available and easily accessible to employees, authorized employee representatives, and division representatives at all times, addressing hazards specific to each work area along with procedures for reporting incidents without retaliation, emergency response, training, hazard identification, and post-incident investigation 4. It requires initial and annual training, and it requires a violent incident log recording the date, time, location, type of incident, classification of the perpetrator, and consequences, retained for a minimum of five years along with hazard identification and correction records and incident investigation records, with training records retained for one year 4. That violent incident log is often the single most important discovery target in a California case, because it converts foreseeability from an argument into a document. Typical engagements include OSHA General Duty Clause citation defense, negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims, threat assessment and termination protocol failures, active assailant response and lockdown planning, healthcare de-escalation and staffing adequacy, and evaluation of whether a written prevention plan existed, was implemented, and was trained.
There are currently no specific OSHA standards for workplace violence; enforcement runs through Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, which requires every employer to furnish a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.
Case Types
OSHA General Duty Clause citations for failure to abate a recognized workplace violence hazard
Assaults on healthcare and social service workers and adequacy of de-escalation and staffing
Negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims following an employee-perpetrated attack
Threat assessment and termination protocol failures preceding an incident
California Labor Code section 6401.9 plan, training, and violent incident log compliance
Active assailant response, lockdown, and emergency action plan adequacy
Third-party and client-on-worker violence in retail, hospitality, and late-night operations
Qualifications
Related Specialties
FAQ
Look for substantial experience in occupational safety or security management within the industry at issue, together with hands-on experience building or auditing written workplace violence prevention programs. Credentials such as Certified Safety Professional or Certified Protection Professional are common. Where a threat assessment or termination decision is at issue, the expert should have practical threat assessment team experience rather than only general safety experience.
These experts are retained in OSHA General Duty Clause citation contests, assaults on healthcare and social service workers, negligent hiring and retention claims after an employee-perpetrated attack, threat assessment and termination protocol failures, California workplace violence prevention plan compliance disputes, and active assailant response planning cases.
Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, the General Duty Clause, which requires every employer to furnish a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. A citation or a corresponding negligence theory must show that violence was a recognized hazard at that workplace, that it was likely to cause serious harm, and that a feasible means of abatement existed. Expert testimony is usually aimed directly at recognition and feasible abatement.
They convert general foreseeability arguments into documentary compliance questions. California Labor Code section 6401.9, operative for most employers on and after July 1, 2024, requires a written and accessible prevention plan, initial and annual training, and a violent incident log recording each incident's date, time, location, type, perpetrator classification, and consequences, retained for at least five years. In those jurisdictions the first discovery request is usually for the plan, the training records, and the log.
Negligent security concerns a property owner's duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts on the premises. Workplace violence prevention concerns an employer's duty to protect its own workforce, and it draws on a different body of authority: the OSH Act General Duty Clause, OSHA program guidance, and state prevention-plan statutes. The two overlap when a worker is assaulted by a third party on the employer's premises, and such cases often require both experts.
In general, environmental expert fees are determined by the expert themselves, based on a variety of criteria. Among those criteria are professional experience, forensic experience, certifications and licensure, regulatory expertise, and publications. Vident does have some influence over expert fees by comparing experts within a specialty, but ultimately it is a personal decision by the expert.
Related Insights
Back in June, in a post about the first (as far as I know) case in which healthcare workers challenged a COVID-19 vaccination requirement, I wrote, “This could be the first of many cases in which...
Practice Area IntelligenceYour response to that title is “Tell me something I don’t know,” right? This is black-letter law! Unfortunately, as every litigator knows, sometimes trial judges make decisions that are simply...
Research BriefingEvery conceivable segment of our lives has been impacted by COVID-19 and by our responses to it. In an effort to reduce the possibility of being exposed to the virus by touching an unsanitized...
Sources
Vident Partners connects attorneys with qualified workplace violence prevention expert witnesses. Complimentary consultation, 24-hour turnaround, no obligation.
Request an Expert →