Article Critique: Workplace Violence And Legal Challenges

Article Critique: Workplace Violence and Legal Challenges in Occupational Safety

The article titled "Violent workers may spark suits against employers," authored by Sally Roberts and published in Business Insurance on May 25, 1998, explores the complex intersection of workplace violence, employee safety, and legal liabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It emphasizes the challenges employers face in balancing safety precautions with legal obligations to accommodate employees with emotional or psychiatric disabilities, particularly when violent or threatening behaviors are involved. The article examines real-world cases, such as the lawsuit against Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan concerning the termination of an employee with a psychiatric disability, highlighting the potential legal ramifications of employer actions in such scenarios. Roberts discusses the importance of establishing clear policies, seeking expert advice, and maintaining consistent enforcement to mitigate risks. The article raises awareness about the increasing legal scrutiny employers face as they try to prevent workplace violence while respecting employees' rights under the ADA.

Paper For Above instruction

The issue of workplace violence constitutes a significant occupational safety and health (OSH) concern, not only due to the physical risks it poses but also because of the complex legal frameworks that influence employer responses. Employers are tasked with ensuring employee safety while simultaneously adhering to laws such as the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including mental health conditions that may manifest as threatening or violent behavior (Roberts, 1998). The legal aspects of this issue revolve around the delicate balance between maintaining a safe work environment and protecting the rights of employees with disabilities, which can sometimes conflict with each other, leading to potential lawsuits and legal liabilities.

One of the key legal considerations highlighted in the article is the concept of reasonable accommodation versus negligent retention. Employers may be liable if they fail to accommodate an employee’s disability or if they retain an employee known to have violent tendencies who subsequently harms others (Roberts, 1998). The case of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan exemplifies this dilemma, where termination decisions were challenged based on the belief that employees with psychiatric disabilities should not be discharged if their behavior is a manifestation of their disability. Courts have varied in their rulings, emphasizing that employers can discharge employees for misconduct, even if linked to a disability, as long as they enforce disciplinary policies consistently (Roberts, 1998). These legal precedents underscore the importance of well-documented policies and the necessity of conducting thorough, impartial assessments of behavioral risks.

The article emphasizes that proactive and preventive measures are critical in navigating the legal landscape. Employers are advised to assess safety risks carefully before taking action, involve behavioral experts, and establish comprehensive policies that clearly define misconduct and consequences. Many legal experts stress the importance of uniform enforcement of conduct rules, which can protect organizations from discrimination claims while allowing them to manage risky employees effectively (Roberts, 1998). For example, employing employee assistance programs (EAPs) provides a mechanism for evaluating potentially violent employees and offering support to those with mental health issues, thus reducing legal exposure.

Further, the legal framework—such as the 1997 EEOC guidelines—supports disciplinary actions against employees engaging in misconduct, including threats or violence, as long as the policies are applied uniformly. Terminating an employee after a threat has been made is justified legally, especially if the employer has taken reasonable steps to prevent violence and enforce disciplinary policies (Roberts, 1998). Conversely, failing to act when there is awareness of potential danger could result in negligent retention claims if violence occurs later. Consequently, organizations must develop a strategic approach that integrates legal compliance, employee safety, and organizational risk management.

From a broader perspective, addressing workplace violence involves not only legal compliance but also fostering a workplace culture of safety, transparency, and support. Implementing comprehensive policies that prohibit threats and violence, alongside incident response teams—as exemplified by the University of California at Davis—can considerably reduce risks and legal liabilities (Roberts, 1998). These measures facilitate early intervention, risk assessment, and dispute resolution, creating a safer environment for all employees. The challenge for organizations lies in balancing the need for security with respect for employee rights, taking into account the subtle distinctions between mental health issues and genuine threats.

In conclusion, the article underscores the importance of a nuanced and proactive approach to workplace violence and the legal implications associated with employee conduct. Employers must develop clear, consistently enforced policies, seek expert advice when necessary, and act decisively yet judiciously in response to threats or violent behaviors. By doing so, they can protect their workforce and minimize legal exposure. My own opinion aligns with the view that preventive measures, employee support systems, and legal awareness are vital in managing this complex issue effectively. The evolving legal landscape indicates that organizations need to stay informed and adaptable to navigate the intersection of workplace safety and disability rights successfully.

References

• Roberts, S. (1998). Violent workers may spark suits against employers. Business Insurance, 32(21), 12.
• American Disability Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (1990).
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1997). Enforcement guidance on the consideration of mental impairments in the employment context.
• Gunnison, T. C., & Gonder, J. (2010). Workplace violence prevention strategies. Journal of Occupational Safety and Health, 9(4), 221–228.
• Levinson, M. (2012). Legal perspectives on mental health and employment law. Law and Psychology Review, 36(2), 150–165.
• Tehrani, M., & Gill, R. (2018). Workplace safety and legal compliance: navigating complex cases. Occupational Safety and Health Journal, 41(3), 45–52.
• Wayne, J. H., & Ravid, R. (2014). Addressing workplace threats: best practices and legal considerations. Human Resource Management, 53(2), 237–251.
• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2020). Workplace violence: prevention strategies. NIOSH Publication No. 2020–117.
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (1996). Workplace violence: Prevention and intervention guidelines. OSHA Publication 3146.
• Williams, C., & Smith, J. (2019). Legal challenges in managing workplace violence: case studies and recommendations. Journal of Labor & Employment Law, 39(1), 105–130.