EMPLOYEE IS PROTECTED FROM
DISCHARGE FOR
MAKING A COMPLAINT ABOUT THREATS OF
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
A California
appellate court recently held that the public interest in a “safe workplace”
and a “crime-free” workplace protects an employee from discharge for making
complaints about an employee who threatens him or her with physical violence. Franklin v. The Monadnock
Company, 151 Cal.
App. 4th 252 (May 24, 2007).
The Law
Under California Labor Code § 2922, the employment
relationship is presumed to be terminable “at-will.” Absent a contractual provision or statutory
requirement to the contrary, either the employer or the employee may terminate
the employment relationship at any time, with or without notice, for any
reason.
Over the years, the legislature and the courts have
carved out numerous exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine. One of these exceptions arises when an
employee is terminated for “performing an act that public policy would
encourage, or for refusing to do something that public policy would
condemn.” Gannt v. Sentry Insurance,
1 Cal.
4th 1083 (1992). In Stevenson v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. 4th 880 (1997), the
California Supreme Court outlined the requirements of this “public policy”
exception: First, the policy must be
supported by either constitutional or statutory provisions. Second, the policy must be “public” in the
sense that it “inures to the benefit of the public” rather than serving merely
the interests of the individual. Third,
the policy must have been articulated at the time of the discharge. Fourth, the policy must be “fundamental” and
“substantial.” Stevenson, supra, 15 Cal. 4th at 889-890.
Franklin v. The Monadnock Company
Calvin Franklin worked as a “heat treater”
at a small parts manufacturing plant. A
co-worker named Richard Ventura allegedly made threats against Franklin and three
other employees, stating that he would “have them killed.” Franklin and the others reported Ventura’s alleged threats
to the employer’s Human Resources Department (“HR”), but the employer did not
take any action. A week later, Ventura allegedly attempted to stab Franklin with a metal screwdriver. Franklin filed
a police report stating that “his safety, as well as that of his co-workers,
was being endangered” by Ventura. According to Franklin, the employer then terminated his
employment because of his “internal” complaints to HR and his “external”
complaints to the police department.
Franklin filed a lawsuit alleging, among other things, that
the employer terminated him in violation of the “public policy” requiring an
employer to provide a “safe workplace” and a “crime-free workplace.” The employer filed a demurrer (the California equivalent of a motion to dismiss the
complaint) challenging whether Franklin
could state a valid wrongful termination claim on these facts.
The court held that the allegations of Franklin’s complaint,
taken as true, would support a cause of action for wrongful termination in
violation “public policy.” Specifically,
the court determined that California’s
statutes, when read together, establish a fundamental “public policy requiring
employers to provide a safe and secure workplace, including a requirement that
an employer take reasonable steps to address credible threats of violence in
the workplace.” As sources for this
public policy, the court cited California Labor Code §§ 6400 et seq.
(occupational safety statutes); California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8
(giving employers the ability to seek workplace violence restraining orders on
behalf of employees); and California Penal Code § 422 (criminalizing certain
threats of violence). Because Franklin alleged that he
articulated this fundamental public policy at the time of his termination, the
court had little difficulty concluding that his complaint was sufficient to
state a valid wrongful termination claim.
Practical Tips
The reasoning of Franklin
is subject to debate, since the court could not identify any specific
constitutional or statutory provision that requires an employer to prevent
workplace violence. As a practical
matter, however, the court’s decision in Franklin – that an employer
cannot terminate an employee for complaining about workplace violence -- makes
common sense and should not come as a surprise to California employers. Employers should take all complaints of
workplace violence seriously, and should not penalize any employee for raising
such issues with managers, HR professionals or law enforcement.
The broader language of Franklin
stating that employers are required to “provide a safe and secure workplace,
including a requirement that an employer take reasonable steps to address
credible threats of violence in the workplace” should also be taken
seriously. Employers should audit their
employee handbooks to ensure that the topic of workplace violence is adequately
addressed and that employees have a clear understanding of their reporting
options. Employers should also train
supervisors and managers to spot workplace violence issues and bring them to
the attention of HR professionals.
Finally, employers should understand that workplace
violence is among the most delicate issues in the workplace, and that the
consequences of mishandling workplace violence can be tragic. Employers should intervene immediately, but
carefully, and should consult experienced HR professionals and employment
counsel at every step of the decision-making process.