When domestic violence strikes the workplace

Employers need to establish programs that focus on early intervention, so threats can be addressed before violence occurs.

For those who live through it, there are few events in life as frightening as an incident of domestic violence that spills into the workplace. Each day, public and private employers are haunted by the prospect of stalkers whose methods may include placing a hundred phone calls per day to the object of their attentions, or sending dead flowers or dead animals to their victims.

When such incidents strike a workplace, the results can be horrifying. Death or significant injury at work, irrespective of cause or victim, can be disruptive and potentially ruinous to the organization. People who witness or otherwise experience these incidents are traumatized, often becoming physically ill or psychologically incapacitated and missing work for months or even years. According to Dr. Chris Hatcher, a San Francisco-based psychologist, multiple-victim homicides and suicides - including those where the perpetrator is among the dead - are more disruptive to organizations than single-victim murders.

A survey of security directors at 248 companies in 27 states found that domestic violence is becoming an increasing problem in most companies. Ninety-four percent of respondents ranked domestic violence "high" on the scale of security problems, and 93 percent reported that domestic violence was increasing as a corporate security issue relative to other security issues.

Unfortunately, the model for dealing with this problem that is offered in forensic and security literature may be seriously flawed. In general, readers learn of men stalking and menacing women. As a result, employers may defend women as single targets when others may be at risk in ways that can also disrupt the organization - threatening its productivity and, potentially, its viability. Because of this threat it is in the organization's interest to prevent any type of violence, including suicide by the harasser. Information gleaned from recent cases suggests that the problem employers prepare for differs significantly from the problems that actually occur.

These problems will grow into a serious security issue unless corporate human resource and security directors, working closely with law enforcement, make a concerted effort to curb this menace. Before we can make significant progress, though, we must have a clear understanding of the issues. There are many misconceptions about the problem of domestic violence at work.

The experts who often deal with this problem - forensic psychiatrists and security specialists, among others - should begin by considering the numerous types of domestic violence. A focus on female victims, while important, may lead us to overlook injuries to third parties, the increasing number of suicides involved in such incidents, and other related problems, such as stalking, threats and injuries to third parties, and violence between co-workers that takes place outside the workplace.

There are, of course, many reasons for a special focus on women. While only one out of five people murdered at work is a woman, more women who die at work will die from homicide than from any other cause. According to the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), slightly more than 10 percent of the men killed at work in the United States die of murder; for women the number exceeds 40 percent.

Domestic violence and stalking know no boundaries - not class, race or sex. Women sometimes stalk men, and even other women. FBI statistics show that women are killing their husbands and significant others at a growing rate. In 1992, there were 623 murders of partners committed by women. It has been said that one out of five relationships experiences difficulty at any given time and that one out of eight relationships under stress experiences violence.

ENCOURAGE THREAT REPORTING

In reviewing examples of domestic violence in the workplace, I found many cases of violence that could have been prevented. More often than not, employers do not encourage victims to report threats of possible harm. These employers blindly assume that romantic entanglements, whether real or imagined, end at the office door or the plant gate.

Consider the Florida case of a 17-year-old male employee who harassed a 31-year-old receptionist, the mother of four children. The receptionist asked a company vice president for assistance but he turned her down. A few weeks later, the 17-year-old tailed his target and fatally shot her eight times with two pistols that he had taken from the company. This murder, which would not be included in the BLS statistics because it occurred away from work, resulted in a lawsuit against the company and a settlement for the receptionist's heirs.

Employers should encourage employees to report threats or harassment and should act in an appropriate fashion when such reports are received. Instead of turning the receptionist away, executives should have sought as much information as possible. They should have met with their young employee and advised him that his conduct was inappropriate and could lead to dismissal. The vice president for human resources could have worked with the receptionist to ensure that the conduct had stopped and, if necessary, counseled her to seek a restraining order or other judicial intervention. If one or more of these steps had been taken, the receptionist might be alive and the courier might not be serving a life sentence in state prison.

Female employees may not feel they have enough power within the organization to persuade their employers to pay attention to threats. Employees who express concern about the possibility of violence may find management unwilling to act, or may even be fired - allowing the employer to avoid dealing with both the threat and the person making the complaint. Women have little incentive to report threats when the probability of a positive response is low and the potential for retaliatory discharge exists. But in such circumstances, employers lose the ability to monitor a threat and prevent the occurrence of violence.

Employees should be encouraged to report threats of violence to supervisors, human resources, security, the corporate legal department, and any other appropriate location. Prudent companies employ toll-free hotlines that have many advantages over internal reporting. Because employers cannot address problems they don't know about, reporting must be encouraged.

ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

Once a report indicating the possibility of domestic violence is received, appropriate questions must be asked. In developing an interview strategy, human resource professionals must be sensitive to privacy and other concerns. As they work on the case, these professionals should recognize that many employees come forward out of fear and their reports are really screams for help. The organization should never lose sight of the fact that violence to others - as well as perpetrator suicide - is a serious possibility.

Since ignorance can be fatal, wise employers will want to know what they are up against. To develop an appropriate contingency plan, all possible outcomes must be identified. The best source of information will most likely be the victim, who should be asked to provide the answers to as many of these questions as possible.

* How long has there been a problem?

* Have threats been made at work?

* Does the perpetrator know the victim's work schedule?

* Does the perpetrator know other employees?

* Are any other employees involved, perhaps in a love triangle?

* Does the perpetrator have a history of violence against romantic partners?

* Does the perpetrator have a history of other forms of violence?

* Is the perpetrator a known drug or alcohol abuser?

* Has the victim sought restraining orders?

Once appropriate information has been obtained, realistic defenses can be structured. Employers may not always be able to rely on law enforcement, which is stretched thin under the best of circumstances.

Since it is impossible to always know where the perpetrator is, he or she often has the advantage of surprise. The challenge for employers is to buy time, hoping that the perpetrator will calm down and become more rational and thoughtful about his or her behavior. In many instances, extra time can improve the victim's chances of obtaining judicial relief or give the police time to locate and detain the perpetrator.

STEPS TO PROTECT VICTIMS

In especially serious situations, employers should provide modest protective services to targeted employees, whether male or female. Several steps can be taken to protect victims from stalkers and many of these involve little or no expenditure. For example, providing protective services simply means having security patrols focus on the area where a potential victim works. This may help deter an attacker and will probably help the employee feel a greater sense of security.

A primary theory in constructing defenses against stalkers is to take away the element of surprise that has been their advantage. If stalkers do not know how to find their victims, their actions are time-delayed and they may become less agitated and less likely to be violent. Unfortunately, there is no certain way to determine how long a crisis situation may last. There are some stalkers who have haunted their "prey" for years. In some cases, law enforcement may enter the picture and take action to enforce restraining orders or other laws that can be used to deter threatening behavior. The wise course for employers is to pursue the situation as aggressively as possible until the threat is gone.

COORDINATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT

Law enforcement agencies across the country have become increasingly attentive to the problem of domestic violence. Too often in the past, law enforcement took a "hands-off" attitude toward domestic violence, reserving action for cases of physical attacks. Increasingly, the trend is to detain stalkers and perpetrators of violence who appear irrational or emotionally unstable.

In cases involving the threat of serious harm, it is usually best for employers to work with law enforcement. Such coordination can be very effective, especially if the perpetrator's location can be determined. In some cases, a simple visit from law enforcement can serve as a "reality check" for the perpetrator. In other cases, more aggressive action is needed.

Some individuals, including prominent forensic psychiatrist Dr. Park Dietz, advise employers to avoid the use of restraining orders, on the theory that such action will trigger an angry reaction from the perpetrator. There is some risk to be sure. But the presence of risk simply suggests the need for defensive strategies. There are compelling moral and legal reasons that support an employer taking a "full-court press" against potential perpetrators of violence. If an employer declines to use legal interventions and violence ensues, the failure to take action could serve as the basis of a lawsuit.

California and other states are now considering allowing corporations to seek restraining orders. This is a good idea in cases where a potential victim simply won't seek such protection. Advocates of this position argue that since the corporation itself can ultimately be a victim, a judge should be able to issue orders for its protection.

WHEN COMPETITIVE ANGER SETS IN

A new phenomenon is now subjecting women to violence at work: competitive anger. Some men resent women who are promoted to supervisory positions, especially if they believe the women did not deserve the promotion. One recent murder at the U.S. Postal Service illustrates this pattern of behavior.

In May 1993, postal employee Larry Jasion entered his Dearborn, Michigan, office and shot three people, killing one. According to the postal inspector, Jasion had expressed his displeasure at being passed up for a promotion that went to a female employee. Jasion filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging gender discrimination, but the agency rejected his complaint about six weeks before the shooting occurred.

As our economy remains uncertain, men feeling insecure about their own jobs may feel threatened when women they work with are promoted. Even profitable companies are cutting back, and employees with inadequate or insufficient anchors in their lives may become increasingly frightened, frustrated and resentful. Men are more likely than women both to lack adequate support systems and to turn to violence when they feel threatened.

VIOLENCE AND HARASSMENT

Women are at special risk in the workplace in a final way: they are more likely than men to be victims of sexual harassment. The overwhelming majority of incidents of harassment are committed by men and directed at women. This harassment presents two kinds of problems.

First, harassment is itself a form of violence. Employees have the right to a safe and secure workplace where they are not subject to unwanted advances or implied or actual threats. Verbal intimidation and sexual harassment inflict psychological and emotional harm that can have long-term negative repercussions for victims. This harm is often as disabling or more disabling than the harm resulting from physical assaults.

Second, sexual harassment is often a precursor to battery, rape or murder in the workplace. Consider the case of Mark Richard Hilbun. After sexually harassing co-worker Kim Springer for months, Hilbun was discharged from his job at a small postal facility 50 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. In discharging Hilbun, the Postal Service cited his unreasonable interference with his co-worker's job performance and his creation of an intimidating, hostile and offensive working environment.

In addition to making sexual advances, Hilbun made threats to Springer and wrote a series of violent, sexually explicit notes. This behavior continued even after he was discharged and the intensity of his threats became so great that Springer was forced to take a week off work. Hilbun's final note to Springer read, "I love you. I'm going to kill us both and take us both to hell." On Springer's first day back at work, Hilbun walked into his former place of employment and opened fire, killing a letter carrier and wounding a clerk.

Employers must take all threats to employee safety seriously and respond to those threats effectively. They must recognize that gender-based threats may lead to violence. Sexual harassment, resentment and anger may be only preludes to physical violence or even murder. Employers need to establish programs that focus on early intervention so threats can be addressed before violence occurs.

Organizations always have choices. They must choose to be informed and to take action. Ignorance is no longer a realistic response to the increasing problem of violence in the workplace.

RELATED ARTICLE: Protect Employees from Stalkers

There are many steps employers can take to protect employees from threats or harassment. Some involve little or no cost.

* Provide protective services to "targets."

* Relocate the threatened employee's work station.

* Alter the employee's work schedule to confuse the stalker.

* Provide photos of the stalker to receptionists, security personnel and other persons in a position to spot an intruder.

* Encourage law enforcement to enforce existing restraining orders.

* In cases where the threat is acute, provide the employee with time off.

* Place silent alarms or buzzers at the employee's work station.

* Deploy a security camera near entrances to the employee's work area.

Source: [c] National Safe Workplace Institute, 1994.

Joseph A. Kinney, M.P.A., is the author of Violence at Work (Prentice-Hall/Simon & Schuster, June 1995) and executive director of the National Safe Workplace Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

COPYRIGHT 1995 Society for Human Resource Management
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group