By Joshua M. HendersonIlana R. MoradyBrent I. Clark, and Craig B. Simonsen

Introduction: We are posting our colleagues’ California Peculiarities Employment Law Blog post on workplace violence.  While this particular topic is California centric, the principles discussed below are universal, and appropriate to publish widely.  For instance, workplace violence under federal OSHA is generally citable under the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Many states, including California, also enforce workplace violence under their own versions of the General Duty Clause.  Additionally, local authorities generally will not get involved in a situation where employment workplace violence is feared — such as where one employee makes threatening statements about a co-worker/manager.  But where the employer/employee has obtained a restraining order, the police are more likely to intercede.

By Christopher Im and Minal Khan

Seyfarth Synopsis: Workplace violence is a major concern that can take the form of intimidation, threats, and even homicide. But fret not: California employers can arm themselves with restraining orders, to prevent a modern version of the “Fight Club” at work.

Rule Number 1: If There’s a Workplace Violence Threat, DO Talk About It—In Court

Being at work during a scene reminiscent of “There Will Be Blood” is not an ideal situation. Yet incidents of workplace violence are alarmingly common. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, nearly two million Americans report that they have witnessed incidents of workplace violence, ranging from taunts and physical abuse to homicide. The recent Long Beach law firm shooting by an ex-employee serves as a chilling reminder of what forms such violence can take.

While there is no surefire way to stop unpredictable attacks against employees—whether by a colleague, client, or stranger—California employers can avail themselves of measures to reduce the risk of workplace threats. One such measure is a judicial procedure: a workplace violence restraining order under California Civil Procedure Code section 527.8.

Rule No. 2: Understand What a California Restraining Order Looks Like

A California court can issue a workplace violence restraining order to protect an employee from unlawful violence or even a credible threat of violence at the workplace. A credible threat of violence simply means that someone is acting in such a way or saying something that would make a reasonable person fear for the person’s own safety or that of the person’s family. Actual violence need not have occurred. Many actions short of actual violence—such as harassing phone calls, text messages, voice mails, or emails—could warrant issuing a restraining order.

Restraining orders can extend beyond just the workplace and protect the employees and their families at their homes and schools. A California court can order a person to not harass or threaten the employee, not have contact or go near the employee, and not have a gun. A temporary order usually lasts 15 to 21 days, while a “permanent” order lasts up to three years.

Rule Number 3: Employer Requests Only, Please

The court will issue a workplace violence restraining order only when it is requested by the employer on behalf of an employee who needs protection. The employer must provide reasonable proof that the employee has suffered unlawful violence (e.g. assault, battery, or stalking) or a credible threat of violence, or that unlawful violence or the threat of violence can be reasonably construed to be carried out at the workplace.

So how does an employer request and obtain protection for their employees?

Rule Number 4: Document the “Fight”

The employer must complete the requisite forms and file them with the court. Though the forms do not require it, it often is helpful to include signed declarations from the aggrieved employee and other witnesses.

If a temporary restraining order is requested, a judge will decide whether to issue the order within the next business day, and if doing so will provide a hearing date on a permanent restraining order. A temporary restraining order must be served as soon as possible on the offender. The order becomes effective as soon as it is served. Temporary restraining orders last only until the hearing date.

Rule No. 5: Keep Your Eyes on the Prize at the Hearing

At the hearing, both the employee needing the restraining order and an employer representative should attend. Employers may bring witnesses, too, to help support their case. The person sought to be restrained also has a right to attend, so the employee needing the restraining order should be ready to face that person. If necessary, the employer or the employee can contact the court or local police in advance to request that additional security or protective measures be put in place where there is a threat of harm.

During the hearing itself, the judge may ask both parties to take the stand for questioning. Upon hearing the facts, the judge will either decide to deny the requested order or decide to issue a permanent restraining order, which can last up to three years.

Restraining orders are a serious matter, as employers are essentially asking the court to curtail an individual’s freedom. But such an order is a powerful tool that an employer may find necessary to protect the safety of its employees.

Workplace Solutions: Even though it may relatively easy to demonstrate a credible threat of violence and thus obtain a protective order, know that California courts protect all individuals’ liberty, including their freedom of speech. Obtaining an order to restrain that liberty requires a detailed factual showing.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of Seyfarth’s OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team.

By Joshua M. HendersonIlana R. Morady, Brent I. Clark, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  On March 9, 2018, the California Office of Administrative Law approved the new regulation that will require hotels and other lodging establishments (such as resorts and bed and breakfast inns) to implement new requirements to protect employees who perform housekeeping tasks from any “musculoskeletal injury.” The regulation will take effect on July 1, 2018.

We previously blogged on the new regulation adopted by the Cal/OSHA Standards Board (OSHSB) on January 18, 2018. The new regulation–“Hotel Housekeeping Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention”–is intended to address a workplace hazard confronted by housekeepers, namely, a “musculoskeletal injury,” which is defined as “acute injury or cumulative trauma of a muscle, tendon, ligament, bursa, peripheral nerve, joint, bone, spinal disc or blood vessel.”

The regulation was petitioned for by the labor union UNITE HERE and contains several union-friendly provisions. The regulation will take effect on July 1, 2018.

Substantially, under the new rules California hotel and other lodging establishments industry employers will be required to update their written Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (IIPP) to incorporate the following:

  • Must have a Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Program (MIPP) in addition to the IIPP. The MIPP may be a standalone policy or incorporated into the IIPP.
  • The MIPP must be “readily accessible” to employees to review during their work shift. An electronic copy is sufficient if there are “no barriers to employee access” as a result. No such requirement exists for IIPPs.
  • By October 1, 2018, effected employers must complete an initial worksite evaluation to identify and address potential injury risks to housekeepers. This worksite evaluation as well as subsequent evaluations (at least annually) “shall include an effective means of involving housekeepers and their union representative in designing and conducting the worksite evaluation.”
  • The MIPP’s procedures for investigating musculoskeletal injuries to a housekeeper must allow for input from the housekeeper’s union representative as to whether any measures, procedures, or tools would have prevented the injury.
  • Records of worksite evaluations and other records required by the MIPP must be made available to a Cal/OSHA inspector within 72 hours of a request. There is no 72-hour deadline under the IIPP regulation.

California hotel and other lodging establishments industry employers now have until October 1, 2018, to roll-out their Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Programs.  These MIPPs must pass the muster of Cal/OSHA inspectors, including the ability to provide records of worksite evaluations and other records required by the MIPP to Cal/OSHA within 72 hours of a request.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team.

By Joshua M. Henderson

Seyfarth Synopsis: Cal/OSHA regulations are enforced by a state agency in administrative litigation. A new Supreme Court decision, Solus Industrial Innovations, Inc. v. Superior Court, allows employees allegedly suffering injuries caused by Cal/OSHA violations to sue for unfair business practices.

The Facts

A water heater explosion at Solus Industrial Innovations, Inc. left two employees dead. After an investigation, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health issued five citations against Solus for alleged violations of Cal/OSHA regulations. Solus appealed the citations to the Cal/OSHA Appeals Board.

Meanwhile, the California Bureau of Investigations (BOI) conducted a separate investigation, as it must when an employee is killed at work. The BOI forwarded its investigation results to the Orange County district attorney (DA), who then filed criminal charges against the plant manager and maintenance supervisor for felony violations of the Labor Code.

The DA also filed a civil action against Solus, claiming that Solus had violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Fair Advertising Law (FAL). These claims alleged that Solus, by maintaining an unsafe work environment, had engaged in unfair and unlawful business practices, while also committing false advertising by making “numerous false and misleading representations concerning its commitment to workplace safety and its compliance with all applicable workplace safety standards,” which allowed it to attract and retain customers and employees.

Solus demurred to the DA’s lawsuit, which was overruled. On an expedited appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Solus. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) preempted UCL and FAL claims arising from alleged Cal/OSHA violations. The DA sought review by the California Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

A unanimous California Supreme Court reversed. The Court held that federal OSHA did not preempt the DA’s civil action against Solus. Rather, California law preempted federal OSHA—a sort of reverse preemption.

Understanding the Supreme Court’s holding requires a brief summary of federal OSHA’s relationship with Cal/OSHA. Federal OSHA occupies the field of workplace safety and health, but permits states to create their own regulatory plans subject to federal review and approval. California has had such a federally approved state plan since 1973. Under this system, federal OSHA provides a regulatory “floor” under which state plans may not fall. But states may enact broader workplace safety protection than found under federal OSHA.

The Supreme Court rejected Solus’s argument that federal law explicitly or impliedly preempted California law except for provisions of the federally approved state plan. Federal OSHA identifies specific areas (such as workers’ compensation laws) that are not preempted. Yet it does not identify precisely what is preempted. According to the Supreme Court, federal OSHA, by allowing states to provide broader protections, anticipates that states may use enforcement mechanisms other than administrative litigation under the state plans to further their aims. Civil litigation under state law, according to the Court, is not foreclosed by the federal statutory scheme.

The Supreme Court noted that UCL and FAL actions may be brought by both government officials and by persons who have suffered an “injury in fact.”

What Solus Means For Employers

While California law (specifically, the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)) previously has allowed claims against employers based on alleged workplace safety violations, PAGA poses several obstacles to ultimate recovery, including exhaustion of administrative remedies and, for some alleged violations, allowing an employer thirty-three days to cure the violations.

Those obstacles do not exist for would-be plaintiffs in UCL and FAL litigation. Accordingly, Solus may result in a spike in workplace safety and health litigation against employers, for several reasons. First, Solus does not require a final order of the Cal/OSHA Appeals Board affirming the underlying administrative citations. Indeed, though the Division had filed citations against Solus, the case was put on hold. During a BOI investigation and any ensuing prosecution, litigation between the Division and an employer concerning administrative citations is held in abeyance. This point raises the possibility that an employer may defeat Division citations and criminal charges, yet still be subject to civil claims.

Second, nothing in the California Supreme Court’s decision suggests that administrative citations are a prerequisite to filing a UCL or FAL claim. Employees may attempt to establish injury in fact in litigation without resorting to filing an administrative complaint with the Division. By contrast, PAGA requires notice to the Division, along with “the facts and theories to support the alleged violation.” Although damages are not available under the UCL, restitution and injunctive relief are. An employee must prove some kind of economic injury in these cases, which may make it more difficult to recover restitution, but may lead to injunctions against employers.

Third, while the Division has six months to issue a citation, the statute of limitations is four years for a UCL claim and three years for a FAL claim. Therefore, the “repose” promised by a six-month administrative limitations period may be shattered by an employee civil action filed long thereafter.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the author, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team.

By Joshua M. HendersonIlana R. MoradyBrent I. Clark, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) recently held advisory meetings on the Agency’s draft rules for the Marijuana/Cannabis Industry and for the Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment.  It is seeking public comments.

Marijuana/Cannabis Industry Rulemaking

The advisory meeting on the DOSH Marijuana/Cannabis Industry Rulemaking was to “consider … whether specific requirements are needed to address exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke by employees at facilities where on-site consumption of marijuana is permitted under B&P Code section 26200(d), and whether specific requirements are needed to address the potential risks of combustion, inhalation, armed robberies, or repetitive strain injuries.” Public commenting is open. The advisory committee must present its finding and recommendations to the Standards Board by October 1, 2018, at which point the Board render a decision regarding whether to adopt the marijuana/cannabis standards.

Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment

The advisory meeting on the DOSH Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment was to “develop a proposed regulation for minimizing heat-related illness among workers in indoor places of employment.”  At the meeting, the public had an opportunity to provide input on a revised discussion draft developed in consideration of the comments received on a previous discussion draft. A side-by-side comparison table is provided along with options for an Amended Section 3395 (Option A) or Creating Standalone Indoor Standard (Option B).

The Cal/OSHA Advisory Committees are currently accepting comments on both of these topics.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team.

By Joshua M. HendersonIlana R. MoradyBrent I. Clark, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) recently held an advisory meeting on the Agency’s draft rules for Workplace Violence Prevention in General Industry.  It is seeking public comments.

The meeting was to seek input on the new draft proposal to address workplace violence in general industry. If adopted, California would become the first state to issue general industry workplace violence rules. Currently, Cal/OSHA can only regulate workplace violence hazards through its “general duty clause” which provides that employers have a general duty to keep their workplaces safe from recognized hazards.

The December 4, 2017 draft proposed rules defines “workplace violence” as “any act of violence or threat of violence that occurs at the work site.”  Specifically under the proposal workplace violence includes:

  1. The threat or use of physical force against an employee that results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, injury, psychological trauma, or stress, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury.
  2. An incident involving the threat or use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, including the use of common objects as weapons, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury.
  3. Four types of violence:

Type 1 violence means workplace violence committed by a person who has no legitimate business at the work site, and includes violent acts by anyone who enters the workplace with the intent to commit a crime.

Type 2 violence means workplace violence directed at employees by customers, clients, patients, students, inmates, or visitors.

Type 3 violence means workplace violence against an employee by a present or former employee, supervisor, or manager.

Type 4 violence means workplace violence committed in the workplace by someone who does not work there, but has or is known to have had a personal relationship with an employee.

The proposal would require covered employers to develop a Workplace Violence Prevention Plan that includes procedures for:

  1. Obtain the active involvement of employees and their representatives in developing and implementing the Plan, including their participation in identifying, evaluating, and correcting workplace violence hazards, designing and implementing training, and reporting and investigating workplace violence incidents.
  2. Methods the employer will use to coordinate implementation of the Plan with other employers whose employees work in same workplace, where applicable.
  3. Effective procedures for the employer to accept and respond to reports of workplace violence, including Type 3 violence, and to prohibit retaliation against an employee who makes such a report.
  4. Procedures to develop and provide the training.
  5. Procedures to identify and evaluate workplace violence hazards.
  6. Procedures to correct workplace violence hazards in a timely manner.
  7. Procedures for post-injury response and investigation.

The Cal/OSHA Advisory Committee is currently accepting comments on the topic.

Note also that California healthcare employers are currently regulated under the Violence Protection in Health Care standard, and will be required, by April 1, 2018, to comply with those provisions for implementing a Violence Prevention Plan and for training their employees.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the author, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team.

By Joshua M. Henderson

Seyfarth Synopsis:  This past week, the Cal/OSHA Standards Board approved a new regulation that will require hotels and other lodging establishments (such as resorts and bed and breakfast inns) to implement new requirements to protect employees who perform housekeeping tasks from any “musculoskeletal injury.”

This new regulation–“Hotel Housekeeping Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention”–is intended to address a workplace hazard confronted by housekeepers, namely, a “musculoskeletal injury,” which is defined as “acute injury or cumulative trauma of a muscle, tendon, ligament, bursa, peripheral nerve, joint, bone, spinal disc or blood vessel.” The regulation was petitioned for by the labor union UNITE HERE and contains several union-friendly provisions. Before it can take effect, the regulation must pass the review and approval of the Office of Administrative Law to assure compliance with certain procedural rules. Once approved, the regulation should take effect in the next few months.

Currently, most California employers (including hotels) are required to have a written Injury and Illness Prevention Plan, which must include provisions related to health and safety training, identification and abatement of workplace hazards, and procedures for reporting unsafe working conditions. The new regulation imposes requirements for hotels above and beyond an IIPP:

  • Hotel employers must have a Musculoskeletal Injury Prevention Program (MIPP) in addition to the IIPP. The MIPP may be a standalone policy or incorporated into the IIPP.
  • The MIPP must be “readily accessible” to employees to review during their work shift. An electronic copy is sufficient if there are “no barriers to employee access” as a result. No such requirement exists for IIPPs.
  • Within three months of the effective date of the regulation, hotels must complete an initial worksite evaluation to identify and address potential injury risks to housekeepers. This worksite evaluation as well as subsequent evaluations (at least annually) “shall include an effective means of involving housekeepers and their union representative in designing and conducting the worksite evaluation.”
  • The MIPP’s procedures for investigating musculoskeletal injuries to a housekeeper must allow for input from the housekeeper’s union representative as to whether any measures, procedures, or tools would have prevented the injury.
  • Records of worksite evaluations and other records required by the MIPP must be made available to a Cal/OSHA inspector within 72 hours of a request. There is no 72-hour deadline under the IIPP regulation.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the author, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team.

By Ilana R. Morady and Andrew H. Perellis

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Cleaning Product Right to Know Act makes California the first state to require ingredient labeling both on product labels and online for consumer cleaning products.

On October 15, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed California Senate Bill (S.B.) 258, the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017. The new law requires manufacturers of certain cleaning products, i.e. “designated products,” to disclose certain chemical ingredients on the product label by 2021.

Designated products are “a finished product that is an air care product, automotive product, general cleaning product, or a polish or floor maintenance product used primarily for janitorial, domestic, or institutional cleaning purposes.” Exceptions apply, such as referencing that the ingredient information is available on a website, or providing a toll-free phone number.

Under the new law, product information – such as the CAS numbers, the functional purposes of certain ingredients, and a link to the safety data sheets for the products – must also be made available on the manufacturers’ website by 2020. In light of the new law, chemical manufacturers of cleaning products should review their inventory of products sold in California and determine if such products are covered.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the Workplace Safety and Health (OSHA/MSHA) Team.

By Jinouth Vasquez Santos

Seyfarth SynopsisMarijuana businesses must properly label their products if they contain chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive health problems.  Failure to do so will result in a civil penalty or civil lawsuit.

Entrepreneurial Plaintiff’s attorneys have now set their sites on marijuana businesses.  Since January 1, 2017, Plaintiff’s firms have issued approximately 800 violation notice letters to marijuana businesses alleging that producers of cannabis infused edibles and vape cartridge manufacturers failed to warn consumers about specific fungicides and pesticides associated with their products.

California’s Proposition 65, or the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires cannabis business owners to provide customers with warning of the chemicals contained in their products which can cause cancer, birth defects, and other health problems.  Among the substances “known to the state of California” to cause cancer, birth defects and other health problems are marijuana smoke itself, and the chemicals myclobutanil (also a fungicide), carbaryl, and malathion, commonly-used pesticides.

Failure to comply with the warning requirement can result in a civil penalty up to $2,500 per violation per day in addition to other penalties established by law. The Attorney General may bring an action in the name of the people or the Act allows individuals to bring a private action to obtain the civil penalty against marijuana businesses for failure to warn.

Before filing a lawsuit, the individual seeking a private action must provide a 60-day notice to the Attorney General and the district attorney, city attorney, or prosecutor in whose jurisdiction the violation is alleged to have occurred, and to the alleged violator.  If, after 60 days, none of the referenced individuals/entities take action, then the individual may proceed with his or her private claim so long as he or she complies with the 60-day notice requirements.

In order for the 60-day notice to be compliant, the notice must include a copy of Prop 65, a description of the violation, the name of the individual seeking an action, the time period of the violation, the listed chemicals involved, the route of exposure (ingestion, dermal contact or inhalation), and a certificate of merit.  The individual bringing the action must certify that they have “consulted with one or more persons with relevant and appropriate experience or expertise who has reviewed facts, studies, or other data regarding the exposure to the listed chemical that is the subject of the action, and that, based on that information, the person executing the certificate believes there is a reasonable and meritorious case for the private action.”

Marijuana businesses may avoid such 60-day notices and potential litigation by becoming familiar with the various chemicals that require warning labels, placing warning labels on their products, and ensuring that the pesticide levels in the products are compliant with California regulations. A comprehensive list of the 800 chemicals identified by the State can be found here.

California’s ever changing cannabis regulations can be difficult to maneuver. If you would like to review your policies for compliance, you may contact one of Seyfarth Shaw’s attorneys for assistance.

By Benjamin D. Briggs, Brent I. ClarkJoshua M. Henderson, and Craig B. Simonsen

Seyfarth Synopsis: Cal/OSHA has recently amended its definition of “repeat” for inspcetion citations to reconcile differences from the Federal OSHA program. The updated rules expand potential liability to California employers.

In August 2015 Cal/OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Repeat citations. The purpose of the amendment was to make California’s “Repeat” violation classification more consistent with Federal enforcement standards by eliminating the “current geographic restrictions” for issuing a “Repeat” citation, and recalculating the starting time for calculating the look back period for a “Repeat” violation. The final Repeat Regulation rule was recently adopted and will be effective on January 1, 2017.

As noted in the Cal/OSHA Final Statement of Reasons, the Director determined that at a minimum, “she must amend the look-back period from three to five years….” “The Director has determined that under Labor Code section 50.7(d), she may not reject Federal OSHA’s recommendation to eliminate establishment/geographic restrictions, because doing so would make California’s Repeat enforcement policy less effective than the federal policy, thus jeopardizing future state plan funding.”

Starting January 1, 2017, California employers will be at risk of a Repeat citation that is based on a previous final citation issued to the same employer anywhere within the State of California.

Also, Cal/OSHA will be able to base a Repeat citation on a previous citation that is many as five (5) years old. Employers should examine their citation history and understand how the new rules may impact their risk of Repeat citations.

The revised rules, which become effective January 1, 2017, clearly increase the risk of Repeat citations and the higher penalties that come with such citations.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team.

By Brent I. ClarkJoshua M. Henderson, and Craig B. Simonsen

shutterstock_65596348Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Division of Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board approved last week its regulations on Workplace Violence Prevention in Health Care.

The California Division of Occupational Safety & Health (Cal/OSHA) Standards Board approved last week its regulations on Workplace Violence Prevention in Health Care, CCR Title 8, Section 3342. The Notice of Addition of Documents to California Code of Regulations was signed September 27, 2016, and the rule was passed by the Board on October 21, 2016. The draft has now been submitted to the Office of Administrative Law for review and approval (or not). If approved the rules will become final and will be submitted to the Secretary of State for promulgation.

We had blogged in 2015 about the Cal/OSHA draft proposed regulation that would require health-care employers, home health and hospice providers, and emergency responders to develop workplace violence-prevention plans, train their employees, and keep records related to workplace violence incidents. If adopted, the regulations also require certain hospitals to report violent incidents that resulted in an injury, involved the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or present an urgent or emergent threat to the welfare, health or safety within 24 hours and all incidents within 72 hours.

Based on the definition of “reportable workplace violence incident” employers are required to report incidents that did not result in an injury if there was a high likelihood that injury, psychological trauma, or stress would result, or the incident involved the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon. The regulations further require employers to take immediate corrective action where a hazard was imminent and take measures to protect employees from identified serious workplace violence hazards within seven days of the discovery of the hazard. Additionally, employers are required to maintain a “Violent Incident Log.”

The rule follows the enactment of SB 1299, requiring Cal/OSHA to have a workplace violence prevention regulation for healthcare workers promulgated by July 1, 2016. Yet, California was not alone. The regulation comes as emphasis on workplace violence increases in both federal and state plan OSHA jurisdictions. For instance, in April 2015 we blogged that “OSHA Updates Workplace Violence Guidance for Protecting Healthcare and Social Service Workers”, in July 2015 we blogged that “Healthcare Employers to Get Even More Attention from OSHA”, in December 2015 “OSHA Issues “Strategies and Tools” to “Help Prevent” Workplace Violence in the Healthcare Setting”, and in August 2016 we blogged about how “NIOSH Offers Free Training Program to Help Employers Address Safety Risks Faced by Home Healthcare Workers”.

As part of the employer’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP), under section 3342(c), the final rules require a “Workplace Violence Prevention Plan” (Plan) that is “in effect at all times in every unit, service, and operation. The Plan shall be in writing, shall be specific to the hazards and corrective measures for the unit, service, or operation, and shall be available to employees at all times. The written Plan may be incorporated into the written IIPP or maintained as a separate document”. In addition, the final rules do incorporate the “Violent Incident Log” provisions. The rules require that the “employer shall record information in a violent incident log about every incident, post-incident response, and workplace violence injury investigation”.

Covered employers in California should take care to evaluate their workplaces for potential workplace violence hazards and institute–and enforce–policies concerning training and reporting.  Certainly employers in California, or with a business presence in California, there is a heightened need to evaluate compliance with these new rules. In addition to modified policies, procedures, and training systems, these new rules may require substantial changes including physical facility changes and staffing increases.

Note that with or without these new rules, in California or out, an administrative enforcement action in the event of a workplace violence incident or related civil liability is a possibility. The new rules also incorporate substantial training, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions. Federal OSHA enforces workplace violence under the General Duty Clause. We would not be surprised to see the Federal OSHA referring to the California Rule in its citations in the future.

For more information on this or any related topic please contact the authors, your Seyfarth attorney, or any member of the OSHA Compliance, Enforcement & Litigation Team or the Workplace Policies and Handbooks Team.