WVpt4 PDF

PART IV
Case Studies and

Practice Exercises
These case studies have been prepared to provide specific risk and threat
factors for examination and to create useful learning tools. They are intended
to provide assistance to organization planners as they develop workplace
violence prevention programs and assess their readiness to handle these types
of situations. The characters in the case studies are fictional and have been
created for educational purposes. No reference to any individual, living or
dead, is intended or should be inferred.
Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery

99
100 Workplace Violence
Case Studies
Introduction The call comes in.
Someone’s being stalked – two employees get into a shoving

match – a woman flees a violently abusive mate – a sometimes-
disoriented employee keeps showing up at coworkers’ homes – a
supervisor’s constant abuse infuriates a subordinate – an em-
ployee in a fit of rage destroys company property – a fired em-
ployee makes a direct threat.
These are just a few examples of the types of incidents that can happen in
the workplace.
How each employer responds to these reports will differ, not only among
different organizations, but sometimes within the same organization,
depending upon the circumstances of each situation. Even in organiza-
tions with highly structured, well-thought-out procedures in place, the
handling will have to depend on:
• The nature of the incident;

• The circumstances surrounding the incident;
• Who is available to respond;
• Who has the skills to deal with the particular situation.
What has been learned from many years of experience in the American
workplace is that the most effective way to handle these situations is to
take a team approach, rather than having one manager, function or office
handle situations alone.
Not using a team approach is laden with problems. In some cases of

workplace homicide, it became apparent that the situation got out of
control because human resources managers did not inform security about
a problem employee, coworkers were not warned about the threatening
behavior of an ex-employee, or one specialist felt he had to “go it alone”
in handling the situation. Also, presenting all cases to a team to consider
lessens the chance that one person’s denial of reality could result in a
failure to act.

101
A team allows for the linking of multiple disciplines and experience-bases
for use in the examination and management of potentially dangerous
circumstances. Where available, management, human resources, em-
ployee assistance program, security, union, legal, and psychological
service representatives should be considered for inclusion on the team. In
cases where the full range of resources are not part of the organization,
outside consultants are often pre-identified and join the team when
critical cases are being handled. This would typically be the case in
smaller organizations without in-house attorneys, psychologists, security
personnel, or threat management professionals.
Employers should have plans in place ahead of time so that emergency

and non-emergency situations can be dealt with as soon as possible.
However, it is also necessary to build the maximum amount of flexibility
possible into any plan.
Basic Concepts Since organizations and situations differ, a list of specific steps or proce-
dures to follow in all workplaces would be inappropriate and impractical.
However, there are some basic concepts that all employers should keep
in mind when formulating a strategy to address workplace violence:
• Respond promptly to immediate dangers to personnel and the work-

place.
• Investigate threats and other reported incidents.
• Take threats and threatening behavior seriously; employees may not
step forward with their concerns if they think that management will
dismiss their worries.
• Deal with the issue of what may appear to be frivolous allegations (and
concerns based on misunderstandings) by responding to each report
seriously and objectively.
• Take disciplinary actions when warranted.
• Support victims and other affected workers after an incident.
• Attempt to bring the work environment back to normal after an inci-
dent.
Forming the For any kind of team to work well in actual tasks, be it in sports or crisis
team’s approach management, it is important that the team develop its approach to
common situations. In all teams, including those formed to lead organiza-
tions’ responses in situations involving workplace violence, training and
group practice are key factors to real-world success. It is important that a
workplace violence management team discuss possible situations and
workable solutions before being assembled for actual situations. This
allows for coordination and feasibility issues to be worked out in advance.

How to Use the Case These case studies have been prepared to provide specific risk and
Studies threat factors for examination and to create useful learning tools.
They are intended to provide assistance to organization planners as
they develop workplace violence prevention programs and assess
their readiness to handle these types of situations. The characters in
the case studies are fictional and have been created for educational
purposes. No reference to any individual, living or dead, is intended
or should be inferred.
As you read the case studies keep in mind that there is no one correct
way to handle each situation. The case studies should not be taken as
specific models of how to handle certain types of situations.
Rather, they should be a starting point for a discussion and exploration of

how a team approach can be instituted and adapted to the specific needs
of each organization. A successfully used alternative may not be useful in
other instances, and there are probably several different approaches that
could be equally useful. Each group in its discussions should strive to
identify several workable approaches.
Questions for discussion The case studies are intended to raise questions such as:
1. Do we agree with the approach the employer took in the case

study?
2. If not, why wouldn’t that approach work for us?
3. What other approaches would work for us?
4. Do we have adequate resources to handle such a situation?
Questions for program Establish a system to evaluate the effectiveness of a response in actual
evaluation situations that arise so that procedures can be changed as necessary. Ask
the following questions after reviewing each of the case studies and after
planning how your organization would respond to the same or a similar
situation:
1. Does our workplace violence prevention program have a process

for evaluating the effectiveness of the team’s approach following
an incident?
2. Would our written policy statement and written procedures limit

our ability to easily adopt a more effective course of action in the
future, if an evaluation of our response showed that a change in
procedures was necessary?
3. Do we have plans to test our response procedures and capability

through practice exercises and preparedness drills, and to change
procedures if necessary?

103
Case Study 1 - “A Threat”
The Incident
A top executive of a major company telephoned the Director of
Security and explained that he had just received a threatening
message. The message was constructed from words and letters cut
out of a magazine and glued to a piece of paper. The message
indicated that the executive would be killed. Later, the same
executive received a dead cockroach taped to an index card with
a straight pin through the body. The message written on the card
was, “ . . . This could be you . . . ”.
Incident Response The Company’s president, Director of Security, and Corporate Counsel
immediately conferred and reviewed the facts regarding the situation and
developed a course of action. They concluded that other law enforce-
ment agencies should be brought into the case. They also decided that
special physical security measures must be taken immediately to protect
the executive.
Investigation The Company had a total population of over 21,000 people, which
included employees, visitors, and guests. The executive could not narrow
the list of suspects. Over the next several months, the executive received
numerous unsolicited items in the mail at his office and home. The U.S.
Postal Inspector was contacted to assist in the case. The original requests
for the unsolicited items were retrieved and handwriting samples ob-
tained. The investigator compared the sample with thousands of notes
and documents written by employees.
Approximately a year later, several employees expressed concern over

receiving harassing unsolicited items in the mail. The original requests
were obtained and it was concluded that they were made by the same
individual. The employees were asked to list the individuals that they
believed to be the most likely suspect. One name appeared on all the
lists. The investigator obtained previously prepared handwritten docu-
ments and the handwriting appeared to be that of the same person. The
information was turned over to a special investigative team with another
law enforcement agency who brought the individual in for questioning.
The individual denied writing the threatening notes or being responsible
for the harassing mail. Finally, the individual relented and provided the
handwriting samples, then returned to his desk at his office where he then
committed suicide. The suicide note explained why the harassing mail
and threatening note were sent. The individual also explained in the
suicide note that he had never met the executive or even knew what he
looked like.
Conclusion Although it cannot be determined if anything could have changed the

outcome of this tragic event, there are many lessons that can be learned
that may avert future incidents.
Lessons Learned 1. The Company was faced with heavy competition and was
downsizing. Employees were being asked to do more with less.
Some incidents of workplace violence involve companies that
are downsizing or that have recently done so.
2. The employee was dedicated and hard working, and proud of

his work. Employees who commit workplace violence are not
always underachievers.
3. Many times top executives become the target of a disgruntled

employee because they are seen as the company or corporate
image.
4. It is important to actively pursue cases of workplace violence.
5. Once the person is identified, immediate action should be taken

to assess his or her actions.
6. If an incident does occur, it is important to consider all victims

and their families. Use the services of a priest or clergy. Decide
how you are going to inform coworkers.

105
Case Study 2 - “Horseplay or Fighting?”
The Incident
On Monday afternoon, a member of the organization’s newly
established Incident Response Team was visited by a supervisor
who wanted to discuss a situation in his section. The Friday before
he had been walking to his car after work and noticed a group of
employees congregating under a tree on the premises. They were
obviously enjoying a few beers and were grilling meat on a small
charcoal barbecue. They called him over and he accepted one of
the offered beers and took a seat in the shade.
About an hour later, two of the workers began to horse around

and show off their boxing skills. One employee misjudged his aim
and, instead of merely coming close, actually made contact and
bloodied the other worker’s nose. The injured worker swore and
started throwing blows as if intending to cause harm. The two
were pulled apart and everyone told them to cool down. The
gathering continued and during the banter back and forth the
bloodied employee had commented, “You’re lucky they pulled
me off, or I’d have kicked your butt.” Everyone laughed.
This morning at work, the supervisor had heard the workers

teasing that employee about being “beaten up.” This seemed to
be taken in good humor at first, but one of the men kept laughing
about it and telling all the employees who had missed the fun
about what had happened. Over a few hours a number of the
other employees had told him to “drop it already,” but he seemed
unwilling to do so. The supervisor noticed the butt of the jokes
seeming to get more and more sullen about the ribbing. One of
the other employees came up to the supervisor and warned him
that if he didn’t do something there might be trouble.
The supervisor talked to the harasser and told him to knock it off,
which ended the teasing. The other employees seemed to appre-
ciate the intervention. The supervisor mentioned the situation
while having lunch with the Human Resources Manager. He was
surprised when the Human Resources Manager said that the “I’d
have kicked your butt” comment on the prior Friday was a viola-
tion of the company policy against verbal threats and that he
wanted the employee fired under the “Zero Tolerance” clause of
the workplace violence policy.
The supervisor felt that this was ridiculous and wanted the Inci-
dent Response Team to decide what should be done.

Incident Response The Incident Response Team met and considered the situation. Some
members argued that “Zero Tolerance” required firing of both the em-
ployees whose horseplay had gone too far. Others argued that the situa-
tion simply had been a brief spate of alcohol-fueled temper that had
resolved itself before the gathering had broken up.
There was also a lot of debate over the supervisor allowing the employees
to drink on the premises after work, as well as his own participation in the
drinking. The legal advisor to the team said that any threat, no matter
how unlikely to be carried out, should result in firing. Otherwise, the
managers involved might be personally liable if the situation ever devel-
oped into violence.
The discussion also involved the conduct of the worker who could not let
up teasing on Monday. The team also considered that the “boxing” itself
possibly violated the company’s rule against horseplay. The Industrial
Relations member of the Incident Response Team said that, due to the
after-hours nature of the activity, and the fact that a supervisor had failed
to prevent the horseplay, there would be no way any discipline would go
uncontested by the union.
After listening to all views, the organization’s senior executive separately

called in the two employees from the Friday incident. They were both
surprised that anyone would think that the words spoken could have
been mistaken for anything but good-natured ribbing. Both said that they
continued to have a good relationship and thought the whole matter
overblown. They also agreed that the employee who kept bringing up the
incident on Monday was a loudmouth whom no one took seriously, and
that the supervisor’s verbal correction had been all that was necessary.
Resolution It was decided that the entire section would be retrained on the company
house rules relating to remaining after hours on premises, and the alcohol
and horseplay prohibitions. The supervisor met with senior managers who
pointed out how his lack of proper supervision had set the stage for what
could have become a major liability for the company, either through fist-
fights or vehicle accidents arising from employees being allowed to drink
on premises before driving home. He acknowledged his failures and
accepted the written reprimand without dispute.
The employee who had made the “kicked your butt” comment was
verbally counseled that such comments, even in jest to friends, could be
misconstrued by others and cause concern.
The employee who had taunted his coworker on Monday, was counseled
to consider how his words could have been irritating to everyone he
worked with. He apologized and said he would not do it again.

107
Questions for Discussion 1. Will “Zero Tolerance” in your organization require firing of all
violators of your workplace violence or safe workplace policy?
2. Are your supervisors properly enforcing work rules in order to

prevent situations conducive to potential violence or other injury?
3. Does your Incident Response Team consist of diverse disciplines

and perspectives to allow for all aspects of situations to be ad-
dressed?
4. Does your team have a single leader who can listen to conflicting
views of members and make decisions as to what course of action
to take in the absence of consensus?

Case Study 3 - “Sexual Assault”
The Incident
A female employee came into the office of the Director of Secu-
rity and reported that a male coworker had sexually assaulted her.
Incident Response The Incident Response Team was not activated.
Investigation The female employee explained that while the two employees were
leaving a work area, the male coworker turned off the lights, reached
both arms around her and grabbed her breasts. The male coworker was
interviewed and denied intentionally touching her breasts. He did admit
he might have brushed against her breast with his elbow. Both employees
indicated that they had been working together for approximately one
year. They also both admitted that they had a close working and personal
relationship on and off the job. They indicated that they had lunch
together on a daily basis and had met outside the workplace at a cocktail
lounge for drinks. They also admitted that they had hugged and kissed
each other in the past.
Conclusion There was insufficient evidence to prove sexual assault and the matter
was turned over to the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Sexual
Harassment personnel in the Human Resources Office for further deter-
mination.
Lessons Learned 1. The EEO Manager wanted the case turned over to their office;
however, it was important to treat the incident as a criminal
matter. A copy of the investigation was sent to them after the
investigation was completed. It is much more difficult to bring
criminal charges of sexual assault/ harassment if the investiga-
tion is not conducted by a trained criminal investigator.
2. Although 50% of marriages start in the workplace, companies

should discourage employees from having a personal relation-
ship at work.

109
Case Study 4 - “Drug and Alcohol Problem”
The Incident
A female employee, who had been sent home for being under
the influence, struck her manager on the side of the head with a
board, pulled out a knife, and threatened to cause bodily harm.
Incident Response The Incident Response Team was not activated.
Investigation On Friday, a female employee was sent home by her supervisor because
she appeared to be intoxicated. The female employee returned to work
on Monday and walked into the manager’s office and proclaimed that
she was drunk and asked what he was going to do about it. The female
picked up a board off the manager’s desk and struck him on the side of
his head. She then pulled out her knife and threatened to cause him
bodily harm. The manager was able to escape from his office. As he ran
down the corridor, the female was in close pursuit, waving the knife in
the air, and screaming unintelligible utterances. As the manager passed a
set of double metal doors, he stopped, closed the doors, held them
closed with his foot, and called out for help. While waiting for the police
to arrive, the female employee continually jabbed the knife blade through
the crack in the doors in an attempt to cut the manager. The police
arrived and arrested the female employee.
During the court hearing and her appeal for wrongful dismissal, the
employee admitted to being addicted to illegal drugs and to being an
alcoholic. She claimed that her father had sexually abused her as a child.
The female’s representative also claimed that the inappropriate behavior
by her supervisor and manager, combined with the illegal drug and
alcohol abuse, caused her to flashback to her childhood, resulting in her
violent behavior. The expert witnesses supported this concept and the
judge ordered the company to reinstate the female to her original posi-
tion. A sexual harassment case was opened against the manager, who left
his position. The case is under appeal.
Conclusion Legal experts say that once the employee declares that she is an alcoholic
and asks for help, she falls into a protected class under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and must be treated as such.
Items for Consideration 1. When employees are told they cannot work because it appears
that they are under the influence of alcohol or an illegal sub-
stance, the company should not let them drive by themselves. The
company should arrange for a family member or friend to pick
them up or have a taxi take them home. If the employee is
involved in an accident after being sent home, there may be
significant legal issues raised.

2. Supervisors and managers who believe an employee may become
violent should use a conference room or keep objects that can be
used as weapons off their desks or behind them.
3. Behavioral psychologists indicate that many times a person’s

outward behavior is their way of asking for help. Supervisors and
managers need to understand their role and responsibilities when
handling such cases. Legal experts indicate that an employee must
declare they are an alcoholic or have a condition that falls into
one of the protected classes under the Americans with Disabilities
Act prior to the commission of the crime or violation of company
policy in order to be protected under ADA.
4. The Threat Assessment Team should get involved in the early

stages, even after an incident has occurred, to provide the neces-
sary advice.

111
Case Study 5 - “Gun Threat”
The Incident
On Friday afternoon, several employees reported to their supervi-
sor that an employee told them that he was going to bring in a
gun with a silencer and shoot someone.
Incident Response Immediate action was required. Therefore, the Incident Response Team
was not activated.
Investigation An employee who had worked for the company for over 25 years be-
came upset with rumors being spread by coworkers. The employee told a
group of coworkers that he was going to bring in a gun with a silencer and
shoot someone. Several coworkers provided statements to that effect.
When interviewed by the Corporate Director of Security, the witnesses
denied making any such statements. The employee was interviewed and
freely admitted to making the statements; however the employee indi-
cated that he did not mean the threats seriously. The employee just
wanted the other employees to stop spreading rumors.
Conclusion Intimidation or the threat of violence violates various laws. In this case,
the employee was not charged criminally; however, the matter was
handled administratively.
Items for Consideration 1. It is important that businesses have a clear policy regarding these
types of threats and intimidation.
2. Businesses must consider each case on the material facts and

weigh all aggravating and mitigating factors. When do you termi-
nate an employee with over 25 years of service?
3. What can businesses do to help the employee?

Case Study 6 - “Threat from a Termination”
The Incident
The Human Resources Manager received a call from a supervisor
who had just completed a firing meeting. The supervisor said that
at the time the employee was notified of the termination, which
was prompted by six no-show, no-call incidents over a five-week
period, the employee became visibly angry and said, “You can’t
fire me! You sure as hell can be terminated, though!”
The supervisor had told the employee to calm down and offered
that “we all say things we don’t mean.” The employee did appear
to calm down, but stood and said, “You’re taking away the only
thing I have left. And I’ll see you tomorrow morning at your house
and then you’ll know what it’s like.”
The supervisor was very afraid. She asked the Human Resources
Manager what to do.
Incident Response The Human Resources Manager immediately contacted the company
threat management team, which consisted only of herself, the Operations
Vice President, and President. They interviewed the supervisor and a
number of other workers. They learned the following:
• The supervisor had talked several times with the employee about the
attendance situation. The employee was a 40-year-old former school
teacher who at first was apologetic about missing his shifts, but became
increasingly sullen at each subsequent counseling. His hygiene and
appearance had begun to suffer, and it was rumored that he was living
in his car. There had also been a few complaints about him being
extremely abrupt with visitors whom he was supposed to serve.
• When given a last-chance warning letter, the employee had merely
crumpled the paper and left it on the supervisor’s desk before walking
out and slamming the door.
• The supervisor noted that she believed that the employee’s wife had
recently left and taken their three children to the Mainland. The em-
ployee was himself from the Mainland, but no one really knew exactly
where.
• He had mentioned to an employee recently that he wondered what the
last thing had been on the mind of someone who had committed
suicide by jumping off the Pali.
• The supervisor lived about five miles away from the last known resi-
dence of the employee. She was married and had two small children. A
year ago she had hosted a party at her home for her employees and the
fired employee had spent much of the evening playing with her chil-
dren.

113
• The supervisor said that a week earlier there had been a story on the
national news about a triple murder at a workplace on the mainland
which had ended with the gunman, a former worker, being shot and
killed by the police. The supervisor said that the fired employee had
commented that this was probably a pretty good way to go and had
said, “I hope that doesn’t hurt too bad.” Another employee, reporting
about the same situation, said that the fired coworker had noted that he
could see how somebody could get so fed up with his boss that he
would “come back with a gun.” He had ended the conversation by
saying that he had always wanted a quick death himself, “like from a
police sniper.”
• Another employee reported receiving a call from the fired employee in
which he was told to stay home tomorrow and that he could keep the
binoculars loaned to him by the fired employee. In the same call, the
fired employee appeared at times incoherent but did mention that the
recent divorce had forced him to lose his home. He also said that
without his job he would not be able to make his child support pay-
ments and he knew his wife would retaliate by preventing their children
from visiting him during their next school break. The call ended with
the fired employee asking his friend to tell his kids that he had always
tried his best.
• The company called the police and was told by the responding officers
that the circumstances did not yet amount to a crime and at this point
there was little that could be done. The police did confirm that the
employee had purchased a shotgun one week earlier.
• The Incident Response Team consulted with a Threat Assessment
Professional who pointed out that the employee exhibited a number of
extremely serious warning signs and pre-incident indicators: a) he had
suffered a series of recent significant losses (family, job, home); b) he
had exhibited an interest in, and identification with, a recent workplace
murderer; c) he had exhibited an interest in suicide; d) he had dis-
cussed being killed himself; e) he had indicated deep despair over his
current situation; f) he had given away a personal object, and seemed
to be settling his affairs; g) he had issued a non-conditional statement of
intent to harm; and h) he had made a recent firearm purchase, coincid-
ing with his likely termination. The Threat Assessment Professional also
noted that the employee was familiar with his supervisor’s home and
family.
Based on a number of recommendations, the organization did the follow-

ing:
• The company arranged with the police department to have uniformed

special duty officers stationed at the company premises around the
clock for seven days. Extension of the coverage would be considered as
the situation developed.
• The company sent the supervisor and her family to stay at a hotel for a
week and agreed to pay the expenses.
• The company engaged the services of an investigative firm to conduct
surveillance of the supervisor’s home by remote video.
• The supervisor’s neighbors were advised that a problem individual
might be visiting the supervisor’s home. They were given a description
of the fired employee and his vehicle and were asked to call the investi-
gators or the police if he was spotted in the area.
• The local police district commander was contacted and it was agreed
that for the next two days increased patrols of the supervisor’s neighbor-
hood would be attempted as other calls for service allowed.
• Attempts were made to contact the fired employee’s ex-wife to obtain
any information she might have regarding likely locations where the
employee could be found.
• A psychologist with experience dealing with violence was retained to
assist with any further contact from the former employee or to assist any
current employees who might be experiencing anxiety over the situa-
tion.
Resolution The next morning a neighbor getting his newspaper noticed a strange car
pull up and park half a block away from the supervisor’s home; the driver
was a lone male. The neighbor noted the license number and upon going
indoors confirmed that it was the fired employee’s vehicle. He called the
police and the investigation company. Arriving police officers saw the man
walking up the driveway of the supervisor’s home with a golf bag slung
over his shoulder and carrying an ax. They ordered him to halt and, when
he brandished the ax at them, they fired a beanbag round, disarming him.
They found a loaded shotgun in the golf bag. He subsequently confessed
that he had intended to break down the door with the ax and murder his
supervisor and her family. He was convicted of attempted murder and
weapons charges and was incarcerated.
Questions for Discussion 1. Would your organization have moved as rapidly to assess and
manage this kind of situation, or would the prevailing attitude
have been that the employee was simply “blowing off steam” and
the organization should simply “wait and see?”
2. Has your organization identified a Threat Assessment Professional
who is experienced in assessing information about troubling
situations? What about a psychological/psychiatric resource for
advice and counseling?
3. Would your organization be willing to take measures to assure an
employee’s safety if a work-related threat extended off-premises?
4. Has your organization identified the resources available through
local law enforcement to assist in situations such as this?
5. What else would your organization do if confronted with this
situation?
6. What would your organization do to monitor the situation in the
future?

115
Case Study 7 - “Random Vandalism or Retaliation?”
The Incident
The Human Resources Manager for the organization receives a
visit from a female employee. Later, as the employee leaves for
lunch, she finds her car, in the office parking lot, damaged by
numerous dents on all four doors. It is evident from clear impres-
sions of muddy boot soles on parts of the damage areas, that
someone had been kicking the car. The woman had recently been
the victim of a serious long-term sexual harassment that had been
investigated by the organization. The result had been the firing,
two days earlier, of the senior manager who had coerced the
woman into a sexual relationship. The Human Resources Man-
ager had met that morning with the fired manager to complete
certain required separation paperwork.
The woman employee said that she remembered once hearing

the former manager boasting of damaging the car of someone
who had cut him off in traffic, after he had pulled the elderly
driver from the car and slapped him around. The woman em-
ployee is afraid that the former manager is responsible for the
damage to her car, and also fears that he will harm her as well.
The woman says that, when she first brought the matter to her
present supervisor, she was told that there was nothing about the
situation that the organization could do and that there was no
connection to the workplace. Besides, says her manager, because
no articulated threat had been made, she should call a body shop
and not the Incident Response Team.
The woman, remembering a briefing given on Workplace Vio-

lence to all employees, did not accept this response and went to
the Human Resources Manager. She says that she thinks she is
being retaliated against for providing a truthful statement in the
company’s sexual harassment investigation and is primarily
concerned for her safety.
Incident Response The Human Resources Manager speaks with the members of the Incident
Response Team. As a result of their conference, the following occurs:
• An experienced investigator is contacted to conduct an investigation of

the vandalism.
• The police are called and a report is made of possible Criminal Property
Damage.

• The Human Resources Manager speaks to other employees formerly
supervised by the fired manager. They confirm that he had frequently
spoken of angry confrontations he had initiated when subordinates had
frustrated him. Two of the employees reported that he had threatened
to “teach them a lesson” if they ever crossed him. Both reported that
they felt physically threatened by his words and menacing manner.
• A background research firm conducts a check of public records in the
locations where the former manager has lived in the past.
• The organization’s Chief of Security conducts a security briefing for the
woman employee. As a courtesy, a security survey is made of her
residence, which is in an apartment complex with excellent access
controls, CCTV cameras and twenty-four hour security guards who
monitor the main building entrance. Grills and gates secure the parking
garage.
• The woman changes her unlisted telephone number and she is given a
new extension number at work.
• The organization sends a letter to the former manager informing him
that he may no longer visit the facility. He is told that all contact be-
tween himself and the company should be through the Human Re-
sources Manager.
• The woman’s parking stall is changed to another located closer to the
parking garage elevators and directly under view of the building security
cameras.
• The building security guards are instructed to escort the woman to and
from her parking stall if she requests.
• The woman is referred to the organization’s EAP provider for counseling
and support. She attends a few sessions, and appreciates having a
sympathetic professional with whom she can confidentially confide her
thoughts and feelings.
Resolution Upon receiving the letter, the fired manager leaves an angry voice mail
message for the Human Resources Manager. While not containing any
overt threat, it does transmit one piece of welcome news. He says they
don’t have to worry about him coming back to their lousy building since
he’s gotten a much better job on another island.
The investigation into the vandalism proves inconclusive. A passerby

recalls walking into the building an hour before the discovery of the
damage and seeing no vandalism. The same man walked out as the
woman was showing it to the Human Resources Manager, and is certain
that the car was fine when he arrived. A check of the parking lot tickets
and access computer records shows that only the fired manager exited
the parking lot during the relevant time period.
Through records found in California it is discovered that the fired man-

ager was arrested for beating an ex-lover when she tried to break up with
him. He was not convicted of that crime, but in a plea arrangement he
entered a deferred plea to a charge of harassment.

117
Although the Human Resources Manager does not receive any further
communications from the former manager she does learn from friends on
the other island that the former manager is indeed working there. No
background inquiries were made to his former employer by his new
employer.
The woman employee reports no further instances of vandalism. The

woman expresses frustration with her own manager’s initial reaction, but
express great appreciation for the subsequent handling by the organiza-
tion.
Questions for Discussion 1. Do you agree or disagree with the handling of this situation by the
organization?
2. Do you think the position of the woman’s current manager is

appropriate for your organization: short of incontrovertible proof
of direct connection, the organization should do nothing to make
an employee feel more secure?
3. What else do you think the organization should have done in this
situation?
4. Does your organization conduct thorough background checks of

prospective employees?
5. Does your organization:

a) Stress SAFETY with all managers?
b) Promote upward reporting of employee safety and security
concerns to the attention of the Threat Management Team or
other responsible executives?

Case Study 8 - “Temporary Restraining Order”
The Incident
The supervisor of an outlying office of a mid-sized organization
telephones the Threat Management Team coordinator at the
headquarters office. The outlying office is located in a large
shopping center. The supervisor tells the coordinator that a female
employee has just told him that at the urging of relatives, and with
misgivings, she has obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
to prevent her ex-husband from approaching within 300 feet of
her. She revealed that he had frequently choked and beat her
during their seven-year marriage. He is an ex-felon, presently on
parole for an armed robbery.
She has recently left her ex-husband for the first time and is living
with a cousin whose address her ex-husband does not know. He
is, of course, familiar with her regular work site.
The employee had delivered the TRO to the local police station
earlier that morning. She also said that the ex-husband used to
have access to a number of guns owned by his friends. He had
warned her on numerous occasions that if she ever told anyone
about his violence he would find her and kill her. For that reason
she is afraid that by starting the TRO process she will cause him to
become enraged and carry out his threats. The police told the
woman that they would try to serve the TRO on her ex-husband
as soon as possible.
Incident Response The Incident Response Team coordinator, who is the company’s Human
Resources Manager, calls an immediate meeting of the team.
While waiting for the team to assemble, the coordinator places a call to
the outside threat assessment consultant on contract with the company.
The consultant advises that the following steps should be immediately
taken at the site:
• The woman should be asked for a copy of the TRO and any other court
orders detailing the locations and person(s) from whom the ex-husband
was ordered to stay away.
• The woman should be asked to supply a full description of the ex-
husband, a recent photograph (if available), and a description of all
vehicles he is known to use.
• The information obtained from the woman should be supplied to the
security guards for the shopping center where the woman’s office is
located.

119
• The woman should be consulted with and directed to make herself
available to her ex-husband as little as possible and to have no commu-
nication of any kind with him.
• The team should develop a plan for what callers or visitors will be told
about the woman’s presence or absence from her work site.
The threat assessment consultant agrees to remain available by telephone

to the company.
The Incident Response Team meets and, in addition to the consultant’s

advice, decides on the following:
• The site manager is to be told to keep the main entry-door to the office
locked. As the office where the woman works rarely has visitors who
do not make advance appointments, the supervisor does not think this
will be a problem. Because the door contains a narrow glass window,
visitors with appointments can be seen and admitted.
• The office receptionist is to be told to call the police and the shopping
center security force upon any appearance made by the ex-husband at
or near the office. Callers are to be told that the woman is on vacation
and that messages are being taken.
• The woman is to be offered an opportunity to work at another office
site on the other side of the island. Her ex-husband is not familiar with
this location.
• The other five employees of the office are to be briefed on the situation
and are to take specific measures to safeguard information about their
coworker and her transfer.
• Contact will be made with the police in order for the company or the
woman to be notified once the ex-husband has been served with the
TRO.
Resolution The same day, the woman moved to another office of the company,
located approximately 25 miles from her normal office. The office staff at
that location was also briefed on the situation and given the information
about the ex-husband’s vehicles and description. A copy of the TRO was
given to the second office manager. It specified that the ex-husband was
to remain a distance of 100 yards away from the woman and her work-
place (her regular work site address was listed).
At 7:30 the next morning, the Incident Response Team coordinator

listened to voice mail left by the police the previous night advising that
the ex-husband had been served the TRO. His demeanor had been angry.

At 8:00 a.m., the coordinator received a call from the manager of the first
office. Arriving employees had spotted the ex-husband sitting in his car
50 yards from the entry to the office. They had called the police and
shopping center security. When the police arrived, they spoke to the ex-
husband and noticed the butt of a pistol protruding from under some
papers on the front passenger seat. The ex-husband was arrested for
violating the TRO and a loaded revolver was recovered from the vehicle,
hidden beneath a copy of the TRO. The pistol was determined to have
been stolen. He was also charged on the weapons-related offenses.
At a subsequent court hearing, a high bail was set. Later, the ex-husband’s
parole was revoked and he was convicted on a felony gun charge.
Questions for Discussion 1. What other steps might the Incident Response Team have taken to
ensure the safety of the woman employee?
2. As is often the case, the TRO was of mixed value. In your opinion,
was it the likely precipitator of the ex-husband’s pre-attack behav-
ior?
3. What alternatives to a TRO could have been used to facilitate the

woman employee’s safety?

121
Case Study 9 - “Behavioral Problem”
The Incident
A supervisor calls the Corporate Director of Safety/Security over
the concern of an employee. The supervisor indicates that the
employee had asked if their neighbors had called. When asked
why, the employee had related a story about his neighbors who
have a machine that can read his mind. The employee had told
the supervisor that this matter needs to be reported because
only the FBI is authorized to have such a machine.
Incident Response The Assistant General Manager, Department Head, Corporate Director
of Safety/Security, Corporate Counsel, and Director of Human Re-
sources reviewed the facts regarding the situation and developed a
course of action. The Incident Response Team concluded that the
employee should be sent to his personal physician and should return
with a letter from his physician stating that the employee “ . . . is not a
threat to themselves or someone else . . . ”. Several months later, the
employee returned to work with a letter from the doctor. The letter
stated that it was the doctor’s opinion that returning to work would be
good therapy for the employee. The company did not have an Em-
ployee Assistance Program (EAP), which made it difficult to handle.
Investigation While interviewing the employee, it was found that the employee had
thrown rocks at the neighbors’ house causing damage to the windows
and roof. The employee explained that this was an attempt to stop
them from using the mind reading machine. The employee seemed
confused. He indicated that he was seeing a state chiropractor, who
suggested that he move because of the neighbors, which he did.
Conclusion The employee did return to work under close supervision and is doing
well.
Lessons Learned 1. Employees should be treated with respect at all times.
2. When dealing with this type of situation, the individual can be

unpredictable. It is important that trained staff handle such
matters and consult with an expert in human behavior and risk
assessment.
3. It is also very important to consider not only violations of

company policy but also violations of criminal laws. Not taking
appropriate action to correct behavioral problems is actually
giving permission to continue with the actions.
4. It is very important to identify who is on the Incident Response

Team and to activate the Incident Response Team as soon as a
potential threat is identified.
Case Study 10 - “Stalking”
The Incident
A supervisor called the Human Resources Manager to request a
meeting of the Incident Response Team for assistance in handling
a situation he’s just learned about. He had been counseling one
of his employees about her frequent unscheduled absences, when
she told him a chilling story of what she’s been going through for
the past year. She had broken up with her boyfriend a year ago
and he’s been stalking her ever since. He calls her several times a
week and she hangs up immediately. He shows up wherever she
goes on the weekends and just stares at her from a distance. He
often parks his car down the block from her home and just sits
there. He’s made it known he has a gun.
Incident Response This organization’s plan calls for the initial involvement of the Security
Director, Human Resources Manager, and Employee Assistance Program
in cases involving stalking. The security officer, EAP counselor, and the
Human Resources Manager met first with the supervisor and then with
the employee and supervisor together. At the meeting with the employee,
after learning as much of the background as possible, they gave her some
initial suggestions.
1. Contact the local police and file reports. Ask them to assess her
security at home and make recommendations for improvements.
2. Log all future contacts with the stalker and clearly record the date,
time, and the nature of the contact.
3. Let voice mail screen incoming phone calls.
4. Contact her phone company to report the situation.
5. Give permission to let her coworkers know what was going on

(she would not agree to do this).
6. Vary her routines, e.g., go to different shops, take different routes,

run errands at different times, report to work on a variable sched-
ule.

123
The team then worked out the following plan:
1. The Human Resources Manager acted as coordinator of the

response effort. He made a written report of the situation and
kept it updated. He kept the team members, the supervisor, and
the employee apprised of what the others were doing to resolve
the situation. He also looked into the feasibility of relocating the
employee to another work site.
2. The Security Director immediately reported the situation to the

local police. With the employee’s consent, she also called the
police where the employee lived to learn what steps they could
take to help the employee. She offered to coordinate and ex-
change information with them. The Security Director arranged for
increased surveillance of the building and circulated photos of the
stalker to all building guards with instructions to detain him if he
showed up at the building.
3. The supervisor began to check the employee’s voice mail in order

to eliminate the number of times she would have to be exposed
to the stalker’s verbal harassment. He forwarded any non-harass-
ing voice mail to a new voice mailbox established for the em-
ployee. The Security Director brought a tape recorder to the
supervisor and showed him the best way to tape any future voice
mail messages from the stalker. She also contacted the
organization’s phone company to arrange for its involvement in
the case.
4. The Employee Assistance Program counselor provided support

and counseling for both the employee and the supervisor through-
out the time this was going on. He suggested local organizations
that could help the employee. He also tried to convince her to tell
coworkers about the situation.
5. The union arranged to sponsor a session on stalking in order to

raise the consciousness of organization employees about the
problem in general.
After a week, when the employee finally agreed to tell coworkers what
was going on, the EAP counselor and Security Director jointly held a
meeting with the whole work group to discuss any fears or concerns they
had and give advice on how they could help with the situation.

Resolution In this case, the employee’s coworkers were supportive and wanted to
help out. They volunteered to watch out for the stalker and to follow
other security measures recommended by the Security Director. The
stalker ended up in jail because he tried to break into the employee’s
home while armed with a gun. The Security Director believes that the
local police were able to be more responsive in this situation because
they had been working together with security on the case.
Questions for Discussion 1. Do you agree with the employer’s approach in this case?
2. What would you do in a similar situation if your organization

doesn’t have security guards or a Security Director?
3. What would you do if coworkers were too afraid of the stalker

to work in the same office with the employee?
4. What would you do if/when the stalker gets out of jail on bail
or out on probation?
5. If the stalker had not precipitated his arrest, how long would
your organization have been willing to continue supporting the
employee with enhanced procedures?
6. Would your union and management have agreed to conduct

stalking training for employees?

125
Case Study 11 - “Frightening Behavior”
The Incident
A supervisor contacts the Human Resources Office because one of
his employees is making the other employees in the office uncom-
fortable. He said the employee does not seem to have engaged in
any actionable misconduct but, because of the employer’s new
workplace violence policy, and the workplace violence training he
had just received, he thought he should at least mention what was
going on. The employee was recently divorced and had been
going through a difficult time for over two years and had made it
clear that he was having financial problems which were causing
him to be stressed out. He was irritable and aggressive in his
speech much of the time. He would routinely talk about the
number of guns he owned, not in the same sentence, but in the
same general conversation in which he would mention that
someone else was causing all of his problems.
Incident Response At the first meeting with the supervisor, the Human Resources Supervisor
and Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor suggested that, since
this was a long-running situation rather than an immediate crisis, the
supervisor would have time to do some fact-finding. They gave him
several suggestions on how to do this while safeguarding the privacy of
the employee (for example, request a confidential conversation with
previous supervisors, go back for more information from coworkers who
had registered complaints, and, if he was not already familiar with the
employee’s personnel records, pull his file to see if there are any previous
adverse actions in it). Two days later they had another meeting to discuss
the case and strategize a plan of action.
The supervisor’s initial fact-finding showed that the employee’s coworkers

attributed his aggressive behavior to the difficult divorce situation he had
been going through, but they were nevertheless afraid of him. The super-
visor did not learn any more specifics about why they were afraid, except
that he was short-tempered, ill-mannered, and spoke a lot about his guns
(although, according to the coworkers, in a matter-of-fact rather than in
an intimidating manner).
After getting ideas from the Human Resources Supervisor and the EAP
counselor, the supervisor sat down with the employee and discussed his
behavior. He told the employee it was making everyone uncomfortable
and that it must stop. He referred the employee to the EAP, setting a time
and date to meet with the counselor.

Resolution As a result of counseling by the supervisor and by the Employee Assis-
tance Program counselor, the employee changed his behavior. He was
unaware that his behavior had been scaring people. He learned new
ways from the EAP to deal with people. He accepted the EAP referral to a
therapist in the community to address underlying personal problems.
Continued monitoring by the supervisor showed the employee’s conduct
improving to an acceptable level and remaining that way.
Questions for Discussion 1. Do you agree with the approach in this case?
2. Can you think of other situations that would lend themselves to

this kind of low-key approach?
3. Does your organization have effective EAP training so that supervi-

sors are comfortable in turning to the EAP for advice?

127
Case Study 12 - “Disruptive Behavior”
The Incident
After workplace violence training was conducted at the organiza-
tion, during which early intervention was emphasized, an em-
ployee called the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) member of
the workplace violence team for advice on dealing with his senior
coworker. He said the coworker, who had been hired at a senior
professional level six months earlier, was in the habit of shouting
and making demeaning remarks to the other employees in the
office. The senior coworker was skilled in twisting words around
and manipulating situations to his advantage. For example, when
employees would ask him for advice on a topic in his area of
expertise, he would tell them to use their own common sense.
Then when they finished the assignment, he would make de-
meaning remarks about them and speak loudly about how they
had done their work the wrong way. At other times, he would
demand rudely in a loud voice that they drop whatever they were
working on and help him with his project. The employee said he
had attempted to speak with his supervisor about the situation,
but was told not to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Incident Response The EAP Counselor met with the employee who had reported the situa-
tion. The employee described feelings of being overwhelmed and help-
less. The demeaning remarks were becoming intolerable. The employee
believed that attempts to resolve the issue with the coworker were futile.
The fact that the supervisor minimized the situation further discouraged
the employee. By the end of the meeting with the counselor, however,
the employee was able to recognize that not saying anything was not
helping and was actually allowing a bad situation to get worse.
At a subsequent meeting, the EAP counselor and the employee explored

skills to address the situation in a respectful, reasonable, and responsible
manner with both his supervisor and the abusive coworker. The counselor
suggested using language such as:
• I don’t like shouting. Please lower your voice.

• I don’t like it when you put me down in front of my peers.
• It’s demeaning when I am told that I am...
• I don’t like it when you point your finger at me.
• I want to have a good working relationship with you.
The employee learned to focus on his personal professionalism and

responsibility to establish and maintain reasonable boundaries and limits
by using these types of firm and friendly “I-statements,” acknowledging
that he heard and understood what the supervisor and coworker were
saying, and repeating what he needed to communicate to them.

After practicing with the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor,
the employee was able to discuss the situation again with his supervisor.
He described the situation in non-blaming terms, and he expressed his
intentions to work at improving the situation. The supervisor acknowl-
edged that the shouting was annoying, but again asked the employee not
to make a mountain out of a molehill. The employee took a deep breath
and said, “It may be a molehill, but nevertheless it is affecting my ability
to get my work done efficiently.” Finally, the supervisor stated that he did
not realize how disruptive the situation had become and agreed to
monitor the situation.
The next time the coworker raised his voice, the employee used his newly
acquired assertiveness skills and stated in a calm and quiet voice, “I don’t
like to be shouted at. Please lower your voice.” When the coworker
started shouting again, the employee restated in a calm voice, “I don’t like
being shouted at. Please lower your voice.” The coworker stormed away.
Meanwhile, the supervisor began monitoring the situation. He noted that

the abusive coworker’s conduct had improved with the newly assertive
employee, but continued to be rude and demeaning toward the other
employees. The supervisor consulted with the EAP counselor and Human
Resources Supervisor. The counselor told him, generally, people don’t
change unless they have a reason to change. The counselor added that
the reasons people change can range from simple “I-statements,” such as
those suggested above, to disciplinary actions. The Human Resources
Supervisor discussed possible disciplinary options with the supervisor.
The supervisor then met with the abusive coworker who blamed the
altercations on the others in the office. The supervisor responded, “I
understand the others were stressed. I’m glad you understand that shout-
ing, speaking in a demeaning manner, and rudely ordering people around
is unprofessional and disrespectful. It is unacceptable behavior and will
not be tolerated.” During the meeting, he also referred the employee to
the Employee Assistance Program (EAP).
The coworker continued his rude and demeaning behavior to the other
employees in spite of the supervisor’s efforts. The others, after observing
the newly acquired confidence and calm of the employee who first raised
the issue, requested similar training from the EAP. The supervisor met
again with the EAP counselor and Human Resources Supervisor to
strategize next steps.

129
Resolution When all of the employees in the office started using assertive statements,
the abusive coworker became more cooperative. However, it took a
written reprimand, a short suspension, and several counseling sessions
with the EAP counselor before he ceased his shouting and rude behavior
altogether.
Questions for Discussion 1. Does your workplace violence training include communication
skills to put a stop to disruptive behavior early on (including skills
for convincing reluctant supervisors to act)?
2. How would your organization have proceeded with the case if

the coworker had threatened the employee who spoke to him in
an assertive way?
3. What recourse would the employee have had if the supervisor

had refused to intervene?

Case Study 13 - “Psychological Problem”
The Incident
A Division administrator contacted Human Resources because of
a female employee who was displaying memory lapses, sudden
physical disability, disorientation, agitation, inability to focus and
retain information, sudden arrival at coworkers’ residences in a
troubled state, threats to harm herself, and possession of a knife
and a handgun while off-duty at the homes and in the presence
of a coworker. The employee had been an unexpected overnight
guest when she appeared at colleagues’ homes in a troubled state.
She has been disoriented to her surroundings, and unable to
identify those with whom she regularly works. Colleagues have
transported her to hospital emergency rooms, and to scheduled
medical and mental health treatments. Coworkers are distressed
about the potential threat posed to them by the employee.
Incident Response The Human Resources Division contacted the Employee Assistance
Program (EAP) for initial consultation. The EAP recommended bringing in
a psychologist with threat assessment expertise to meet and help devise a
response plan.
The initial meeting consisted of several representatives of Human Re-

sources, the Division administrator, the EAP and the threat assessment
psychologist. At this meeting, the background of the case and the em-
ployee was discussed. The employer revealed that the goal of the inter-
vention was to devise a strategy which would enable the safe retention of
the employee.
Administrator The Division administrator was tasked with providing the personnel file to
the psychologist for review. He would also arrange for the employee to be
evaluated by the psychologist for purposes of providing a plan of action
based upon a mental health, or Fitness for Duty evaluation. He arranged
for coworkers to have access to the EAP program in order to address their
fears and consequent mental health needs.
Human Resources The Human Resources administrator contacted security in order to

develop background information related to the employee. Information
about the employee’s criminal history of violence and weapons posses-
sion was desired. The Human Resources administrator also consulted with
the Division administrator to make sure that the organization’s policies
and procedures were implemented. The Human Resources office articu-
lated questions that they wanted answered by the Fitness for Duty evalua-
tion.

131
Employee Timed to coincide with when the Fitness for Duty evaluation was being
Assistance Program conducted, the EAP had a crisis debriefing session with all employees.
The purpose of this debriefing was to address ongoing concerns of the
employees, provide information that may lead to their reassurance that
the organization was acting responsibly, and to provide linkage to indi-
vidual counseling. The EAP also conducted individual short-term counsel-
ing and referrals for employees who expressed a need for these services.
In a manner ensuring confidentiality, the EAP provided information to the
threat assessment psychologist about behaviors of concern to these
employees.
Threat The psychologist interviewed selected administrative staff and learned the
Assessment Psychologist employer’s goal was the safe retention of the employee. Information was
developed that the employee had no criminal history. Initial information
was that the employee had recently been evaluated for a stroke, but that
the physical complaints of this employee had no known medical causa-
tion. A referral had then been made for psychological care.
The threat assessment psychologist met with the employee and gained
access to her mental health files. It was learned that she became de-
pressed and anxious, and started to have flashbacks and disconnected
memories of her childhood. She had trance-like dissociative states. She
was suspected of being a victim of sexual abuse as a child, as well as
some other violence. Her psychiatrist prescribed a number of medications
commonly used in treating depressive, panic, seizure and psychotic
disorders.
Psychological testing was conducted, with results indicating the employee

was not in touch with her emotions, that may overcontrol the way that
she expressed her anger. Her profile indicated that she tended to be
impulsive and act out in socially unacceptable ways. She showed a
pattern of guilt and remorse and negative self-evaluation after her impul-
sive behavior, but she tended to repeat this behavior. People with her
profile tend to feel tense, agitated and unable to manage their problems.
They engage in compulsive behavior and set high standards for them-
selves and feel guilty when such standards are not met. The test results
showed that she had superior intellectual functioning. While she has
admitted to recent suicidal ideation, her test results did not suggest a
tendency to express anger outwardly. Her pattern of test results suggests
that she may have symptoms of a number of psychological conditions.

The psychologist interviewed the employee. She admitted hearing voices.
She described these voices as coming from within her head and that the
identity of the voice was known to be her. At times, the voices argue. She
showed no evidence of obvious delusional beliefs. At times, her memory
and concentration appeared lacking for someone of her intellectual
capacity. She said that she did not understand why her employer was
involved in her situation. She expressed apprehension that she may lose
her job.
The employee expressed distress over her recent behavioral changes. She
claimed that she finds herself at different locations without remembering
the circumstances of her travel.
The employee denied any homicidal ideation, thoughts, intent or plans.

She admitted to suicidal ideation in the past, the last time 2-3 months
ago. Her plan had involved shooting herself and at least on one occasion,
she had placed a gun to her head. She had thoughts about driving her car
over a cliff, but she did not pursue this because the outcome was “not
guaranteed.”
She told the psychologist that a few months ago that she had attempted
to acquire a handgun for target practice because she could not bring an
unregistered weapon — which she possessed — to the range. She was
unable to acquire one because she truthfully answered registration ques-
tions pertaining to her mental condition. She had, and may continue to
have, access to two other weapons. She claimed that her husband’s
unregistered handgun was dismantled. She said that a second unregis-
tered weapon had been in a safe deposit box, but that she then anony-
mously had mailed it to the police. When the psychologist expressed
skepticism that she had mailed this weapon to the police, she then
denied mailing it and claimed that she had thrown the gun into the ocean
after contemplating killing herself. The employee revealed that she is an
experienced shooter of weapons, having been trained to shoot by her
father when she was aged four or five. She said that she knows that she
can always go to a shooting range to use a weapon there.
The employee disclosed that she had increased her level of alcohol
consumption over the past six months. She admitted that she had con-
sumed one and a half beers before coming into the psychological inter-
view in an attempt to manage her anxieties. While she denied any history
of problems with alcohol or craving to drink, she revealed that a friend of
hers had told her that her drinking was making matters worse. She denied
any current abuse of illegal substances, but admitted smoking marijuana
and using Ecstasy on several occasions while in college.

133
An interview with the employee’s supervisor indicated that over the past
few weeks, she had been doing well in her work. He felt that she was
getting better. He was able to tolerate her occasionally taking sick leave
because of episodes that she may experience. He considered her one of
the best employees he ever had.
The psychologist completed his evaluation and wrote a detailed report on

his findings.
Resolution The Fitness for Duty documented the severity and variety of her psycho-
logical conditions, that the conditions would become noticeable on a
periodic basis, and that this would prevent her from working during that
time period. During acute episodes of her disorder, she was viewed as
being unable to perform some or all of her work functions, duties and
responsibilities.
During the period of time that her condition flared, she was considered to
be a mild-substantial danger to hurt herself. The level of risk varied as a
function of her fluctuating psychological course. Also elevating the risk
level was the potential presence of handguns, the location and security of
which were not adequately documented. While the employee denied
any thoughts, intent or plan to hurt others, the presence of weapons was
perceived to elevate the risk that others could be inadvertently hurt in any
attempt to hurt herself. Additionally, others who might seek to disarm her
could be injured in this process.
The report concluded that if the employer wanted to keep the employee
working under these conditions, that coworkers should not transport her
for medical care, but should call an ambulance and security if such care
was needed. It was also recommended that the employee be directed to
have her weapons secured by police authorities. The Employee Assistance
Program was suggested as a resource that could be tasked with making
recommendations regarding the employee gaining access to specialized
treatment programs on the mainland, which programs could be helpful to
the employee.
The employer was advised that a comprehensive risk management

approach would also involve retaining a security firm that could develop
additional information about the behavior, thinking and plans of the
employee. The security firm could engage in surveillance or pretext
contacts in order to aid in managing the case. The employer was in-
formed that this approach could serve as an early warning system if the
employee were engaged in active measures to plan an act of violence.
Despite this recommendation, the employer decided against these mea-
sures.

The employer decided to retain the employee and to continue to provide
accommodation. The employer provided time off for psychological care
and discontinued the practice of employees providing transportation to
psychological and medical care. The employee has been performing her
duties well. Another employee decided to quit because she was so
traumatized about being exposed to the behavior of her coworker.
Questions for Discussion 1. Do you agree with the employer’s willingness to retain the em-
ployee?
2. Would your organization handle the situation differently? How?
3. Has your organization identified a threat assessment professional if

a similar situation occurred in your organization?

135
Case Study 14 - “Harassing Behavior”
The Incident
A Division administrator contacted Human Resources because of
a male employee who, for a period of four years, had engaged in
harassing behavior that included threatening hand gestures, facial
sneers, hitting another employee with a refrigerator door, being
confrontational and intimidating others. In addition, the one
employee had made racially derogatory remarks and was badger-
ing and confrontational. The employee had a history of complain-
ing about alleged mistreatment at his workplace. Eight formal
internal complaints were documented about the behavior of four
coworkers. In formal and informal complaints, he had claimed
sexual harassment, reprisals, retaliation, hostile behavior, and
racial harassment. He claimed there was a conspiracy against him.
He said that he had received prank calls from a coworker. In
about a four-month period, he had filed five complaints alleging
coworkers had engaged in racial discrimination and lying. No
complaints were sustained. Over a four-year span, few of his
complaints resulted in coworkers being counseled about their
behavior. Most of his complaints were not sustained.
His supervisor and coworkers started to complain about his

behavior. He asked if he could get directives in writing. He was
observed making extensive use of the telephone for personal calls.
He yelled at a coworker. His continuous talking was interfering
with other coworkers’ productivity. He was tardy to work. His
supervisor complained about the employee causing her stress. He
was noted as moody, making threatening gestures (punching his
fist into the palm of his hand), and recording his conversations
with everyone by means of a tape recorder. He was asked to calm
down as his voice escalated and got very loud. He was unwilling
to work required overtime.
He asked a supervisor if he could bring a gun to work in order to

protect himself. When he was told “no,” he asked if he could
bring pepper spray to work. A coworker claimed that the em-
ployee confided that he carried a knife in his socks.
The employee was placed on leave with pay in order to conduct

an investigation of his work environment. Three years later, the
company sought to take action to resolve this situation.

Incident Response The Human Resources Division contacted a psychologist with threat
assessment expertise to meet and help devise a response plan.
The initial meeting consisted of a representative of the Human Resources

office and the threat assessment psychologist. At this meeting, the back-
ground of the case and the employee was discussed. The employer
revealed that the goal of the intervention was to devise a strategy which
would enable the safe return to work of the employee.
Human Resources The Human Resources administrator was tasked with providing the
personnel file and other documents (including the complaint file) to the
psychologist for review. He would also arrange for the employee to be
evaluated by the psychologist for purposes of providing a plan of action
based upon a mental health, or Fitness for Duty evaluation.
Threat The psychologist interviewed selected administrative staff and learned that
Assessment Psychologist the employer’s goal was the safe return to work of the employee. The
psychologist was provided information that the employer had sent the
employee to a psychiatrist at the time he was removed from work status.
The psychiatrist conducted one interview and performed no testing. The
psychiatrist’s report indicated that coworkers had anxiety about the
employee’s potential for dangerousness.
Psychological testing results indicated the employee may have tried to

present a distorted and overly positive impression of himself, thereby
limiting confidence in the psychological test results. His psychological test
results showed that he desires to dominate in relationships and that he
may have occasional exaggerated aggressive responses. He has strong
need for attention and affection from others and he may fear that these
needs will not be met if he is more honest and open about his attitudes.
People with his profile are perfectionists and condemnation causes them
considerable tension, especially if conveyed by persons in authority. There
was no evidence that the employee suffered from disorders such as
psychosis, depression, or anxiety disorders. He operated at a normal level
of intellectual functioning. There was evidence that he may have various
personality disorders.
The psychologist interviewed the employee, who was tense and cautious.
He had an unusual affect, a prominent and intermittent facial grimace.
He was articulate, deliberate and overtly cooperative. He denied any
homicidal or suicidal ideation, thoughts, intent or plans. He claimed that
he owned no weapons. He denied any intent to bring a firearm to work,
claiming that he only wanted permission to carry a “pepper spray gun.”
The reason for this was his purported fear of a coworker. He denied
telling this same coworker that he carried a knife on his person, or that he
ever does carry a knife.

137
The employee showed no evidence of hallucinatory behavior or obvious
delusional beliefs. He said that he had no problems with alcohol, and
previously used it very rarely. He denied any current substance abuse, but
admitted smoking marijuana while in high school. He does not take any
medication.
The employee was asked if he would be willing to disavow any rights to

gun ownership in order to return to work. Initially he responded by saying
that he would have to consult with his union in order to not give up any
rights. When told that some people are willing to disclaim such ownership
rights in order to regain their position, he instructed this evaluator to write
that he would do so.
The psychologist completed his evaluation and wrote a detailed report on

his findings.
Resolution The Fitness for Duty report documented that the employee currently
showed evidence that he represents a low risk of present danger to
himself or others. There was no recent or past specific threat. There was
no known substance abuse or psychotic disorder. There was no known
history of violence, other than a reported incident when he hit a co-
worker with a refrigerator door. However, the request to bring a gun to
work and allegations that he wore a knife on his person were concerns. It
was suggested that if the employee was allowed to return to the work-
place, it would be prudent to accept his offer to disavow any gun owner-
ship rights by having him submit a statement to this effect to authorities.
The psychologist stated that because of the employee’s personality disor-

der, he was likely to continue to have problems dealing tactfully with
people. Training classes in anger management, stress management, and
conflict resolution were suggested. However, the employer was warned
that supervisory tactics would need to be employed to observe his work
behavior and document whether or not he meets all requirements,
including interpersonal comportment.
The threat assessment psychologist suggested to the employer that the

services of a security firm be retained in order to develop more informa-
tion on the criminal background and weapons ownership profile of the
employee. The employer was advised that a comprehensive risk manage-
ment approach would also involve the security firm engaging in surveil-
lance or pretext contacts in order to aid in managing the case. The
employer was informed that this approach could serve as an early warn-
ing system if the employee was engaged in active measures to plan an act
of violence. Despite these recommendations, the employer decided
against these measures.

The employer decided to retain the employee. The employer required
the employee to attend extensive anger management training. The
employee complained about this requirement and continues to be
uncooperative with the employer.
Questions for Discussion 1. Do you agree with the employer’s willingness to retain the em-
ployee?
2. Would your organization handle the situation differently? How?
3. Has your organization identified a threat assessment professional if

a similar situation occurred in your organization?

139
Practice Exercises*
Introduction This section contains exercises that will encourage you to utilize the
information learned in the manual, and to think about the best ways to
handle the issue of violence in the workplace.
How to Use the It would be helpful if you could use an experienced trainer who would
Practice Exercises ask you to work in small groups. First approach the exercise as a fellow
employee. Then you might approach the exercise as a supervisor or
manager.
For these exercises, follow the steps below.
1. Read the assigned exercises.
2. Discuss “Things to Think About” and formulate responses.
3. Have someone in your group take notes and present your re-
sponses to the larger group.
4. Ask your trainer for assistance when needed.
*From Understanding and Responding to Violence in the Workplace, U. S.

Department of Health and Human Services, March 1997. Reproduced by
U. S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 22161 (703) 605-6000.

141
Exercise 1: “Thank Goodness It’s Friday!”
You are sitting at your desk quietly winding up your work for the day. It’s
Friday afternoon and your thoughts turn to your plans for the weekend.
Suddenly you are startled by some commotion you hear in the hall. You
recognize the voices of your coworkers John and Sarah. Sarah is yelling at
John to stop bothering her, that she is sick and tired of his sexual harass-
ment. John is yelling back at her, telling her she’s crazy and that he can’t
stand to be with her, much less sexually harass her. The screaming contin-
ues and you step out into the hall to try to intervene. About that time,
John storms off saying to Sarah, “I hope you have a horrible weekend, I’ll
make sure that you do!”
Sarah is shaking and runs out the door. You start thinking about what you
should do. All you really want to do is go home and forget this event. It
will cool down by Monday. Something bothers you, though. You know
that John is an avid gun collector and user and there have been rumors
that he has hit his wife. Suddenly you are worried about Sarah.
THINGS TO THINK ABOUT:
1. Do you think you should get involved in this situation?
2. What are you going to do now?
3. Is John a violent person?

Exercise 2: “Helping Mary”
Mary is a coworker in your agency. She has been a valuable employee to

your group and one of the most respected experts in her field. You notice
lately, though, that she is more reserved and is absent quite a bit. You
hear her quietly crying or having a fight with someone on the phone
frequently. She is a bit jumpy while she is at work, always looking over
her shoulder when she goes somewhere.
You ask her to lunch one day and voice your concern. Mary says she is
having some problems at home but that they are is nothing to worry
about; she can handle them herself. Several weeks later you notice that
Mary’s fear has escalated. She rarely leaves the building. When she must
leave, she moves quickly, always covering her face. She works erratic
hours. Her fear is really beginning to affect everyone at work. You are all
concerned for her but don’t know what is going on. You begin to wonder
if there is a real danger, both to Mary and to the rest of you who work
with her.
1. Do you believe this is a situation that requires further action on

your part? Why or why not?
2. What are the appropriate interventions in this situation? Think

about those things that you and the other coworkers can do, what
Mary’s supervisor can do, what security staff can do, and what
any other agency staff can do.
3. Are there other protections that should be considered for Mary

and her coworkers?

143
Exercise 3: “The Unhappy Customer”
Your job in this Department is to assist recipients of substance abuse

grants. It involves working with customers face-to-face each day. Since
there are many recipients of these grants, it is impossible to know all of
them personally. Due to recent budget cuts, some of the grantees have
been eliminated.
Some of the discontinued recipients have been calling you. They are
extremely upset and have even screamed at you. One even threatened to
get even since you ruined his life. You ignore these calls and threats,
attributing the behavior to the situation of losing their livelihoods. In fact,
you actually feel sorry for them and decide you would also be upset if
you lost your program.
One morning, you are sitting in your office and a man bursts in and starts
waving a gun at you. You do not recognize him. He starts screaming, “It’s
time to get even and don’t act like you don’t know what I’m talking
about!”
1. Detail what you would do in this situation.
2. Could this situation have been prevented? If so, what are some of
the preventative actions you and your Department could have
taken?

Exercise 4: “The Burnt-Out Administrator”
In the last few months, your agency has undergone a re-organization. You
are the computer network administrator and have been working very
hard to reconfigure everyone’s computers. You have been putting in a lot
of hours at night so you cause as little disruption as possible. You are
starting to feel extremely stressed. Your attitude has been bad and you
don’t particularly like coming to work. You tell yourself that this will end
soon, after the new system is put in place.
One morning, after a particularly long night, you come in to work and sit
down to read your email messages. There is a message from a very angry
employee whose computer has crashed and she needs your help immedi-
ately. You walk around to her space and the woman starts to verbally
attack you.
She screams, “YOU ARE SO STUPID! ONLY STUPID PEOPLE WOULD

MESS UP A COMPUTER THE WAY YOU DID. WHY DON’T YOU GET A
JOB THAT YOU CAN HANDLE? DON’T YOU FEEL ASHAMED FOR
WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO ME?”
1. What are your thoughts about this woman right now?
2. Based on these thoughts, how do you think you will respond to

her?
3. What are some effective thoughts that would let you see this
situation in a different light?
4. What are some things you can do to handle the stress you are
feeling at work lately?

145
Exercise 5: “The Strange Visitor”
In the middle of the day, you leave your office to go the restroom. You
notice that the back emergency door has been propped open to let in the
cool breeze. Once you are in the restroom, you notice a woman acting
very strange. She is talking to herself and seems to be agitated. You have
never seen her before and she does not have an ID badge on. When you
leave the restroom, she follows you to your office. She states she is a job
applicant but no one will talk to her and she doesn’t know where to go.
Her voice starts to get more frantic.
You offer to take her to the personnel office but she refuses to cooperate
and becomes belligerent. She begins to scream about how the govern-
ment is out to get her. It becomes clear that this woman is going to be a
problem. You wonder how she ever got past the guard.
1. Now that this situation has escalated, what are the best ways
to intervene?
2. Would you be concerned about the physical security precau-

tions in your building? Why or why not? If you are concerned,
what would you do to address these concerns?

Exercise 6: “The Suspicious Caller”
You are a health care worker at the agency’s clinic in Wotakki. As you are
filling out your patient charts one evening, you hear the phone ring at the
nurse’s station and pick it up. The caller’s voice is muffled, as if he had a
handkerchief over the receiver. You also think you hear traffic in the
background so it makes it even harder to hear. He starts talking very
quickly and says, “I DON’T LIKE WHAT YOU ARE DOING AT THAT
CLINIC AND I WANT IT TO STOP. I HAVE A BOMB PLANTED IN THE
BUILDING AND PLAN TO SET IT OFF VERY SOON. YOU WILL BE
SORRY NOW FOR WHAT YOU DID!” He hangs up the phone.
1. What would you do now?
2. Based on this conversation, what information would you provide

to law enforcement personnel?

147
Exercise 7: “Another Visit With John”
Monday morning
This morning you receive an anonymous note from a female employee in

your Department who has accused John of sexual harassment. The note
states that he has placed several calls to this employee’s home and asked
her out on dates. The employee has refused and has asked John to stop
calling her. The employee complaint was anonymous, but because you
only have 25 female employees in your area, you have been able to
narrow it down to five possibilities, based upon facts you received in the
complaint. The complaint also alleges that while the female employee
was standing at the copy machine, John rubbed up against her and made
a comment about being physically attracted to her.
John is a 56-year old employee who has worked for the Government for
28 years. While John has not been a stellar employee, his performance
has been adequate and he has received regular pay increases consistent
with his longevity.
During the last five years, John has applied for two promotions and has
been turned down both times. On those two occasions, he was disap-
pointed that he was not chosen and made negative comments to his
coworkers about affirmative action. However, it did not seem to have a
significant impact on his work.
About six months ago, John and his wife of thirty years separated. They
have three grown children, none of whom live in this area. While John
didn’t really talk about his separation and the details, there were some
quiet rumors that John was abusing his wife. In addition, there have been
many rumors over the years that John has an alcohol problem. However,
since he has a very good attendance record and his performance is
adequate, his supervisors decided to respect his privacy and not look into
the rumors.
John has only a few friends at work. In his spare time, he is an avid hunter
and competitive pistol shooter. In fact, he has won several national
awards in competitions sponsored by the NRA. To your knowledge, he
has never brought a firearm into the workplace.
1. What are you going to do now?
2. Do you want to change any plans you made at the beginning

of this training?

Next day 8:00 am
You read the complaint carefully again several times after not having slept
well all night. You decide to contact the human resources office and
speak to a special investigator who regularly conducts sexual harassment
investigations. Since you do not know the identity of the complainant, it is
impossible for you to conduct any interviews of that person. The human
resources investigator calls John to come join you for a discussion.
9:00 am
John arrives and you and the investigator inform him that someone has
complained about his behavior. You ask him if he will cooperate with the
investigation. John expresses outrage that his reputation is being tarnished
and demands to know the identity of the accuser. You tell him the com-
plaint was anonymous, but he does not believe you. He insists that he is a
good loyal employee with many years of services who is being unfairly
maligned by some “bitch.” This language and this type of behavior are
fairly unusual for John.
Toward the end of the meeting with John, he becomes belligerent and
says, “You have some nerve; I have worked here for 28 years and done a
damn good job. Now, you have accused me of sexual harassment. This is
outrageous.” Then his face becomes beet red and he says, “I’ll show all of
you; nobody messes with me. I’m going to teach all of you a lesson you’ll
never forget!” With that, John bolts out of the meeting, walks out and
grabs his coat, looks back and says, “I’ll be back later, after I’ve taken care
of a few things.”
1. What would you do now?
2. Would you involve others at this point? What are the conse-
quences if you do?
3. Do you think John has made a threat?
4. Do you think a request for a medical exam is appropriate at

this time?

149
Exercise 8: “The Bickering Coworkers”
You are the supervisor of a large group of employees. Over the last few
months, you notice that two of your employees, Bob and Ed, have not
been getting along. They have been calling each other names and have
been raising their voices at each other. You have ignored this up until now
thinking, “Boys will be boys.” But the situation has escalated now and
you are afraid one of them will harm the other. Coworkers are starting to
complain that they are afraid and that they can’t concentrate with the
disruptions. When you try to sit them down and talk to them, they are
belligerent and tell you to stay out of the situation. They tell you this has
nothing to do with work and they will handle it on their own. They get up
and leave your office.
THINGS TO THINK ABOUT
1. Do you think this is a violent situation? Why or why not?
2. What would you do at this point?
3. Do you think disciplinary action is warranted? If so, identify the

behavior or conduct that is inappropriate. What is your recom-
mended action?
4. Would you consider terminating these employees if the behavior

did not stop? If so, what precautions would you take to assure
the safety of everyone involved?

WVpt4 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

WVpt4 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WVpt4 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PART IV

Case Studies and

Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery

Someone’s being stalked – two employees get into a shoving

• The nature of the incident;

Not using a team approach is laden with problems. In some cases of

Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery

Employers should have plans in place ahead of time so that emergency

• Respond promptly to immediate dangers to personnel and the work-

102 Workplace Violence

Rather, they should be a starting point for a discussion and exploration of

1. Do we agree with the approach the employer took in the case

2. If not, why wouldn’t that approach work for us?

3. What other approaches would work for us?

4. Do we have adequate resources to handle such a situation?

1. Does our workplace violence prevention program have a process

2. Would our written policy statement and written procedures limit

3. Do we have plans to test our response procedures and capability

Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery

Approximately a year later, several employees expressed concern over

Conclusion Although it cannot be determined if anything could have changed the

2. The employee was dedicated and hard working, and proud of

3. Many times top executives become the target of a disgruntled

4. It is important to actively pursue cases of workplace violence.

5. Once the person is identified, immediate action should be taken

6. If an incident does occur, it is important to consider all victims

Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery

About an hour later, two of the workers began to horse around

This morning at work, the supervisor had heard the workers

106 Workplace Violence

After listening to all views, the organization’s senior executive separately

Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery

2. Are your supervisors properly enforcing work rules in order to

3. Does your Incident Response Team consist of diverse disciplines

108 Workplace Violence

Incident Response The Incident Response Team was not activated.

2. Although 50% of marriages start in the workplace, companies

Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery

Incident Response The Incident Response Team was not activated.

110 Workplace Violence

3. Behavioral psychologists indicate that many times a person’s

4. The Threat Assessment Team should get involved in the early

Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery

2. Businesses must consider each case on the material facts and

3. What can businesses do to help the employee?

112 Workplace Violence

Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery

Based on a number of recommendations, the organization did the follow-

• The company arranged with the police department to have uniformed

Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery

The woman employee said that she remembered once hearing

The woman, remembering a briefing given on Workplace Vio-

• An experienced investigator is contacted to conduct an investigation of

116 Workplace Violence

The investigation into the vandalism proves inconclusive. A passerby

Through records found in California it is discovered that the fired man-

Prevention, Intervention, and Recovery

The woman employee reports no further instances of vandalism. The