Journal of http://jmi.sagepub.

com/
Management Inquiry

Workplace Violence, Employer Liability, and Implications for Organizational Research

Ramona L. Paetzold, Anne O'Leary-Kelly and Ricky W. Griffin
Journal of Management Inquiry 2007 16: 362
DOI: 10.1177/1056492606294521

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jmi.sagepub.com/content/16/4/362

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Western Academy of Management

Additional services and information for Journal of Management Inquiry can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jmi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jmi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jmi.sagepub.com/content/16/4/362.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 28, 2008

What is This?

Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 2, 2014

 ♦♦♦

ESSAYS

Workplace Violence, Employer Liability,

and Implications for Organizational Research

RAMONA L. PAETZOLD
Texas A & M University
ANNE O’LEARY-KELLY
University of Arkansas
RICKY W. GRIFFIN
Texas A & M University

Organizations face potential liability whenever workplace violence occurs inside their
boundaries. Focusing on violent behaviors between employees, the authors examine the
major legal theories that apply most often in workplace violence scenarios—negligence
(state law), sexual harassment law (federal law), and the Americans with Disabilities
Act (federal law). The purpose is to highlight avenues for organizational research that
arise because of the legal issues that employers face. For each source of liability, the
authors identify major research questions that should be studied in organizational
science, particularly by aggression and violence researchers.

Keywords: legal issues; aggression; sexual harassment; ADA; workplace deviance

W
ith good reason, workplace violence has
joined the list of human resource issues that
concern American employers. FBI statistics
indicate that about 1 million individuals are victims of
some form of violence in the workplace each year
(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995), with about
one of every six violent crimes occurring in the work-
place (U.S. Department of Justice, 1999). Between
1996 and 1999, 48% of respondents to a Society for
Human Resource Management survey had experi-
enced at least one instance of violence in their work-
place (Daily Labor Report, 1999). Not surprisingly, the
costs to employers are significant. The FBI study esti-
mated that lost workdays from workplace violence
cost employers $55 million per year (Federal Bureau
of Investigation, 1995), and one study reported aver-
age jury awards of $2.2 million for workplace-related
deaths and $1.8 million for workplace rapes (Bates &
Donnell, 1993). It is clear, therefore, that workplace
violence is a serious problem for employers, making
it an important area of interest to organizational
researchers (e.g., Neuman & Baron, 1997, 1998;
O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew, 1996; Robinson &
Bennett, 1995; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997).

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY, Vol. 16 No. 4, December 2007 362-370

DOI: 10.1177/1056492606294521
© 2007 Sage Publications
362

Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 2, 2014

 Paetzold et al. / LIABILITY FOR WORKPLACE VIOLENCE 363
Many employers have proactively used risk
assessment, policy development, supervisory train-
ing, and other similar programs to address work-
place violence. There are gaps, though, in what the
law may seem to require and what organizational
research indicates may be effective. Although there is
growing research on workplace aggression and vio-
lence, most of it reflects social psychology’s focus on
areas such as stress, justice, and social cognition the-
ory, thereby identifying research opportunities
within the theoretical frameworks of psychology.
These approaches may not be sufficient to address
the issues that arise from legal theory and the organi-
zation’s desire to avoid liability, however. What is
missing is a review from a legal standpoint that could
assist in identifying alternative types of research
questions and opportunities that are particularly
relevant to organizations and employers. From this
practice-based perspective, we must first examine
what legal theory assumes about workplace aggres-
sion and what principles it relies on to determine lia-
bility and then determine if there is scientific
evidence regarding these assumptions. The purpose
of this article is to analyze the relevance of different
legal theories applicable to workplace violence phe-
nomena to better define this legal context, to reveal
the assumptions legal theory makes, and to identify
organizational research questions related to these
assumptions.
To accomplish this objective, we first describe the
phenomena of workplace aggression and violence
and identify the definitions that bound our legal dis-
cussion. Next, we present the current, frequently
used legal theories for employer liability in the con-
text of workplace violence. For each of these theories,
we identify some key research questions that arise as
a result of conflicts between legal assumptions and cur-
rent knowledge in organizational science. We believe
that these research questions provide highly relevant
avenues of research for organizational scholars.
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE AND AGGRESSION:
DEFINING THE CONSTRUCT
For a meaningful legal review, we adopt the
definition of workplace aggression suggested by
Neuman and Baron (1997), in which workplace
aggression is described as “efforts by individuals to
harm others with whom they work, or have worked,
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 2, 2014
or the organizations in which they are presently, or
were previously, employed” (p. 395). This commonly
used definition focuses our discussion on antisocial
work actions that are initiated by an organizational
insider (an employee) against another organizational
insider. We consider only these efforts because harms
suffered by property or individuals outside the
organization raise different legal issues and because
of space limitations. We note that aggression is dif-
ferent from violence, as suggested by both some
courts (Thatcher v. Brennan, 1986) and the organiza-
tional science literature (O’Leary-Kelly et al., 1996).
Aggression refers to the potentially destructive
work-related act, whereas violence describes the
harm caused by the act. In addition, the harm must
be legally actionable. In the context of workplace vio-
lence, this means that the harm must constitute
actual physical injuries that could lead to criminal
charges against the perpetrator (e.g., simple assault,
rape, murder). For example, ordinary sex or race
discrimination does not result in this kind of harm
under the law, but harassment harms may be work-
place violence if they involve assault of some kind.
We now turn to a discussion of the major theories of
employer liability for workplace violence—state
negligence law, federal antiharassment law, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1993). The
first two provide for liability to the victims of work-
place violence, whereas the ADA provides for liabil-
ity to the wrongly treated perpetrator or assumed
perpetrator of workplace violence. We deliberately
exclude other areas of law where the impact on
employers is indirect or as yet underdeveloped
(e.g., OSHA, 1970, negligent misrepresentation in
references).
MAJOR SOURCES OF EMPLOYER LIABILITY
Negligent Employment
Negligent employment imposes direct liability on
an employer for the employer’s own negligence that
causes injury to an employee. In cases of workplace
violence as we have defined it, this means that there
must be harmful acts committed by an employee
against another employee and that the employer
must be negligent by providing the opportunity for
the perpetrator–employee to commit those acts.
Negligence claims require the injured employee to
364 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / December 2007
prove that (a) the instigating employee had a ten-
dency toward violent behavior (i.e., that the employee
posed a foreseeable risk of violence to coworkers and
was therefore “incompetent” to perform the job), (b)
the employer knew or should have known of that
tendency or foreseeable risk, (c) the instigating
employee inflicted harm on the plaintiff, and (d) the
employer’s negligence in hiring, supervising, and/or
retaining the instigating employee, or failing to warn
the targeted employee, caused the harm to occur
(e.g., Paetzold, 1998). (Note that states may articulate
these elements differently, but the core ideas remain
the same. In addition, negligent hiring is widely rec-
ognized across the vast majority of states, whereas
negligence in supervising, retaining, and failing to
warn is not as established. Nonetheless, a Westlaw
search of all court cases since 1945 involving negligent
retention generated 2,642 cases, whereas negligent
hiring cases for the same period numbered 5,026.
Even with potential overlapping of some cases, this
demonstrates a non-negligible risk for employers.)
Central to these four elements are the notions of fore-
seeability and causation (e.g., Mellon Mortgage Co. v.
Holder, 1999). Foreseeability is particularly critical
because it both establishes the duty that an employer
has to its employees and determines whether the
employer’s actions can be said to have caused the
harm that occurred. It allows courts to determine
whether an employer’s actions appear reasonable
under the circumstances.
The extent to which employers have a legal duty
to protect coworkers from each other is determined
by the judge, not the jury (Goldberg, 1994). Factors
that influence the notion of duty include the nature of
the job and its responsibilities and the foreseeability
that persons in a position similar to the injured
employee could have been harmed. Duty is also
determined by public policy considerations; for
example, employers may be encouraged to hire
ex-felons to give them a second chance as rehabilitated
citizens (Paetzold, 1998). An employer breaches duty
when it fails to take reasonable care to protect the
employee under the circumstances (as determined by
the trial fact finder). For example, hiring a mainte-
nance worker who has little contact with coworkers,
but who subsequently assaults a female manager,
may not reflect a breach of duty, even if no back-
ground check was performed. On the other hand, the
employer would have a duty to protect the female
manager from other employees with whom she is
expected to interact. Duty can change over time, so
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 2, 2014
that once an employee has assaulted a coworker,
the employer would have a duty to protect other
coworkers by more carefully supervising or even dis-
charging the aggressive employee.
A breach of duty does not immediately lead to lia-
bility, however. The perpetrating employee’s actions
must first be responsible for the injury the coworker
suffered. In employee violence scenarios, this is easy
because the violence is directly and intentionally
acted out against the injured coworker. Even then,
the employer cannot be held liable unless there is a
close enough causal connection between the
employer’s negligent acts (breach of duty) and the
harm that resulted. The issue is whether the particular
harm was likely enough to follow from the employer’s
negligence to justify holding the employer responsi-
ble for it. For example, if reasonable supervision
could not have prevented an unexpected outburst of
anger resulting in an attack on a coworker, then a
lack of supervision by the employer cannot be the
proximate cause of the coworker’s injuries.
To illustrate, consider Yunker v. Honeywell, Inc. (1993).
Honeywell employed Landin, who strangled a female
coworker. After Landin served 5 years in prison,
Honeywell rehired him as a custodian and twice
transferred him because of workplace confrontations.
A female coworker, Nesser, became friendly with
Landin. When he began to harass her both at home
and at work, she quit seeing him and requested a
transfer. One day she found a death threat on her
locker (“one more day and you’re dead”), after which
Landin resigned. About two and a half weeks later,
he shot and killed Nesser in her driveway. He was
convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to
life imprisonment.
Nesser’s family sued Honeywell for negligent
employment. The court held that Honeywell was not
liable for negligent hiring because it had no duty to
Nesser at the time of Landin’s hire. His job responsi-
bilities (as a maintenance worker) entailed no expo-
sure to coworkers. The court did not find ex-felons
inherently dangerous, taking into account the public
policy goal of providing them with fresh beginnings.
Hence, there was no general duty on Honeywell’s
part to protect coworkers from an ex-felon. Honeywell
was also not liable on the negligent supervision claim
because he was not on the premises or using
Honeywell’s property at the time he shot Nesser;
Honeywell’s duty to supervise did not extend that
far. On the negligent retention claim, however, the
court stated that Honeywell had a duty to refrain
 Paetzold et al. / LIABILITY FOR WORKPLACE VIOLENCE 365
from retaining employees with known dangerous
proclivities. After rehiring Landin, Honeywell had
plenty of opportunity to note his continued tendencies
toward aggressive behavior. He sexually harassed
female employees, challenged a male coworker to a
fight, threatened to kill another coworker during an
angry confrontation, and engaged in workplace out-
bursts against Nesser herself, culminating in the
death threat. Because Landin’s ultimate harm to
Nesser was reasonably foreseeable, the negligent
retention claim was sent back for trial.
More recently, in Tecumseh Products Co. v. Rigdon
(2001), the employer was held liable for negligent
rehiring and retention because the employer rehired
Godwin, who then assaulted Rigdon, a coworker.
Godwin had originally been fired by Tecumseh
because he had lunged at his supervisor with his fists
and generally exhibited adversarial, impulsive behav-
ior, but he was rehired when he threatened to sue for
race discrimination. The court found that Tecumseh
knew of Godwin’s propensity to lose his temper and
should have known that he posed a risk to cowork-
ers; Tecumseh retained Godwin in a manner that
foreseeably put other employees at risk. Tecumseh
was not only held liable for negligent retention, it
was assessed punitive damages because the jury
determined that it had willfully ignored evidence of
Godwin’s aggressive tendencies in putting other
employees at risk of harm.
Most negligent hiring claims are decided on the
basis of whether appropriate background checks
were performed (Byford, 1996). If a reasonable back-
ground search could have revealed a foreseeable risk
that the resultant injury might have occurred, the
employer will be held liable. Employers typically
must conduct some type of background investigation
to avoid liability (e.g., Estate of Arrington v. Fields,
1979), but the background check need only be rea-
sonable as opposed to exhaustive (e.g., Wise v.
Complete Staffing Services, Inc., 2001). Reference check-
ing cannot be expected to provide much information,
but attempting to obtain information about employ-
ment gaps and verifying information provided on
the job application may be enough to constitute a rea-
sonable background check (Smith, 1999). More thor-
ough checks could include conducting criminal
background investigations (subject to state and fed-
eral law), but criminal convictions cannot be used to
exclude a potential hire from a job unless the crime
directly relates to the person’s ability to perform the
job (see Morris, 1999). Arrest records should not be
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 2, 2014
used to screen potential employees because of their
potential for disparate impact discrimination
(Paetzold, 1998). Negligent retention and supervision
typically come into play after the employee has been
hired. An employer must take immediate action to
prevent further harm as soon as it is aware of the
employee’s aggressive tendencies toward others,
because the employer is then foreseeable that
employees may be at risk of harm.
Negligent failure to warn occurs when the
employer has a duty to warn employees who come in
contact with an employee who has dangerous ten-
dencies if the harm to those persons is reasonably
foreseeable (i.e., sufficiently concrete and not too
speculative; Coath v. Jones, 1980; Prosser & Keeton,
1984; Wood v. Astleford, 1987). A male employee who
harasses a female employee may create the employer’s
duty to warn her of any past violence toward women,
even though the employer may not have a duty to
warn female employees in general (Duffy v. City of
Oceanside, 1986).
Research Questions
Negligent employment theory raises several
research questions that should be addressed by orga-
nizational researchers. To date, most organizational
research has focused on environmental or highly
contextual factors in studying aggression (e.g., Folger
& Skarlicki, 1998; Martinko & Zellars, 1998), but legal
theory suggests that more emphasis should be placed
on individual differences and their interaction with
workplace factors. Questions suggested by legal the-
ory include:
• Is there an individual difference construct that
causes some individuals to have a greater tendency
than other individuals to behave in aggressive ways?
If no such individual difference construct exists, do
other individual differences operate in an indirect
manner to trigger aggressive behavior?
• If there is a propensity toward aggression, is it one-
dimensional or multidimensional? How is it related
to other individual differences such as locus of con-
trol? What triggers it to manifest itself? Can it be
measured in a valid way?
• If there is a propensity toward aggression, how can
organizations use it in making particularized risk
assessments in given workplace situations or as a
basis for providing warning to relevant employees?
366 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / December 2007
• If there is a propensity toward aggression, can organ-
izations determine ethical and legal ways to use it as
a basis for making selection decisions?
• Can all forms of workplace violence be predicted?
Workplace Harassment
Workplace harassment has been viewed as a form
of aggressive behavior that can lead to violent harm
(Fitzgerald, 1993; O’Leary-Kelly, Paetzold, & Griffin,
2000). When causing physical harm, harassment may
lead to suits based on negligent employment, as
described above. In addition, though, victims of sexual
harassment commonly bring suits under Title VII,
and victims of other types of harassment (e.g., race-
related, religious, age-related, or disability-related
harassment) bring suit under the relevant federal acts
as well. We note that a variety of state claims may
also arise from workplace harassment (e.g., under
state civil rights laws), but because these vary con-
siderably by state, they are beyond the scope of our
discussion.
Employees claiming hostile environment harass-
ment must establish both that harassing conduct
occurred and that the employer should be held
responsible. Because the focus of our article is on
employer liability, we emphasize this latter issue
here. Recent Supreme Court rulings have clarified
the standards for employer liability under Title VII
(which would presumably apply under other fed-
eral acts as well). There are important distinctions as
to whether it is a supervisor or coworker who is
doing the harassment. First, if a supervisor is
responsible for the harassment and tangible job con-
sequences occur, the employer is automatically
liable for the harassment (Faragher v. City of Boca
Raton, 1998). Second, if a supervisor is responsible
for the harassment but there are no tangible job conse-
quences that occur, then the employer has a possible
defense: If it can prove that it exercised reasonable
care to prevent and promptly correct the harassing
behavior (Prong 1) and that the plaintiff–employee
unreasonably failed to take advantage of any cor-
rective or preventive opportunities the employer
provided (or to avoid harm generally; Prong 2),
then it can avoid liability (Burlington Industries v.
Ellerth, 1998). This is an affirmative defense, mean-
ing that the burden of proof is on the employer.
Having a clearly written antiharassment policy
with a viable complaint procedure can help to
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 2, 2014
establish that the employer has exercised the needed
reasonable care, just as showing that the plaintiff
unreasonably failed to use the employer’s com-
plaint procedure typically will satisfy the second
part of the defense. Neither guarantees that the
organization will win, but the Burlington (1998)
court indicated that for most cases, evidence of
both should be sufficient.
For example, in Bennett v. K-Mart Corp. (2001), the
court found that because K-Mart’s policy against
(sexual) harassment was disseminated and conspic-
uously posted throughout the workplace and pro-
vided a clear procedure for registering complaints
and promised no retaliation, K-Mart could readily
avail itself of the affirmative defense. On learning of
the harassment, K-Mart met with the harasser and
warned him that his job was in jeopardy, which
caused the harassment to stop. Thus, K-Mart satis-
fied Prong 1. Furthermore, K-Mart proved that the
plaintiff waited 4 months to report the unwelcome
behavior and then only to a coworker, thus delaying
K-Mart’s ability to learn of the harassment. K-Mart
therefore established Prong 2 as well and avoided
liability.
Sometimes coworkers, not supervisors, are the
perpetrators of workplace sexual harassment. In
these scenarios, the burden is on the plaintiff–
employee to prove that the employer knew, or
should have known, of the harassment and failed to
take prompt remedial action (i.e., a negligence stan-
dard) for the employer to be held liable (Andrews v.
City of Philadelphia, 1990; Paetzold & O’Leary-Kelly,
1996). The “should have known” aspect means that
employers have to be vigilant in monitoring their
employees so that behaviors indicative of problem-
atic, unwelcome work relationships—which might
include sexual or other harassment—can be observed.
If the workplace behaviors cannot reasonably put
the employer on notice that harassment is occur-
ring, the employer may avoid liability (e.g., Reese v.
Meritor Automotive, Inc., 2001, in which the court
held that two employees spending considerable
time together could just as easily have been wel-
come behavior as unwelcome behavior and was
therefore insufficient for the organization to infer
unwelcomeness). Furthermore, the role of an exist-
ing antiharassment policy may not be as critical in
coworker harassment situations, as long as the
employer has an effective means of identifying and
correcting workplace harassment (Hall v. Bodine
Elec. Co., 2002).
 Paetzold et al. / LIABILITY FOR WORKPLACE VIOLENCE 367
Research Questions
Legal theory clearly suggests that organizations
must not only thoroughly train supervisors but also
impress on them the potential risks of any sex- or
other protected-class-based behavior, even if it is (ini-
tially) welcomed. Not surprisingly, legal theory also
clearly establishes that the potential for employer
risk is elevated when there is no antiharassment
policy in place or when the complaint procedure is
ambiguous or biased (because legal theory assumes
that policies and procedures can be effective). The
message to employers is that the best defense against
harassment claims is to minimize the likelihood
(through training, policy formulation, diligent super-
vision) of harassment occurring in the first place. The
following research questions are suggested:
• What is the effectiveness of antiharassment policies
with respect to reducing harassment? Can they be
improved so as to enhance their effectiveness in reduc-
ing harassment? For example, how do individuals of
protected classes make choices to use an organiza-
tion’s complaint procedure, and what organizational
factors affect these choices?
• Can antiharassment training content and method-
ologies be improved so as to enhance their effective-
ness in reducing harassment? What factors influence
a supervisor’s decision to fail to implement harass-
ment procedures (despite training)?
• Based on the “knew or should have known” stan-
dard for examining coworker harassment, what
group-related factors affect the development of
harassment knowledge within a set of employees
and the ways in which management might become
aware of it?
• What personal and organizational factors result in an
individual’s engaging in different forms of harass-
ment behaviors?
The ADA and Accommodation Issues
Because of its reasonable accommodation require-
ments, it might first appear that the ADA (1993)
would hinder an organization from protecting itself
against workplace violence in those instances when
the violence is a result of aggressive actions by per-
sons with disabilities. In other words, the ADA might
be viewed as interfering with an employer’s ability to
avoid negligent employment liability. In particular, this
would appear to be the case for employees suffering
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 2, 2014
from mental disabilities but who are “otherwise qual-
ified” to perform their jobs (ADA, 1993). On the one
hand, employers cannot act out of their own irra-
tional fears about mental illness to eliminate those
who are mentally impaired from the workplace. On
the other hand, if persons with mental impairments
are likely to engage in aggressive acts that could lead
to violence, employers should protect themselves
against liability (e.g., that based on negligent
employment).
One reason for potential mistakes under the ADA
is the popular notion that the mentally ill are more
likely to engage in violent behavior (Link & Stueve,
1994; note that 45% of respondents in a 1990 study
felt it was natural to be afraid of someone who is
mentally ill). The Stradley v. LaFourche Communications,
Inc. (1994) case was allowed to proceed to trial because
of a supervisor’s assumption that an employee suf-
fering from anxiety and depression would commit
violence; the supervisor used his own “general life
experiences” to determine that the employee would
be a threat (p. 444). The courts have been clear that
these types of assumptions are not justifiable; the dis-
abled person must at least exhibit threatening behav-
iors before the employer can take action.
Some employers try to avoid liability for work-
place violence by screening employees via psycho-
logical testing, but tests that tend to screen out
individuals with a disability cannot be used unless
they are job related for the position in question
and consistent with business necessity (ADA, 1993,
§ 12,203). However, a test that screens for emotional
instability may be permitted because emotional
instability is not clearly viewed as a disability or a
trait that would aid employers in identifying a dis-
ability (Thompson v. Borg-Warner Protective Services
Corp., 1996). In addition, when an applicant or
employee discloses a mental disability to receive rea-
sonable accommodation, any inquiries that suggest
that the employer views the individual as potentially
violent could give rise to liability under the ADA. A
person with a mental disability who could have been
accommodated to avoid workplace violence may
also lead to liability if the employer did not provide
the accommodation (Paetzold, 2004).
Employers are not helpless to prevent workplace
violence as a result of the ADA, however. First, many
employees suffering from mental impairments are
not considered to be disabled under the ADA (e.g.,
Dewitt v. Carsten, 1996 [stress]; Duda v. Board of
Education, 1998 [interpersonal problems]; Paetzold,
368 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / December 2007
2005 [bipolar disorder]; Stefan, 2002 [personality dis-
orders]). Second, as a result of the U.S. Supreme
Court decision in Sutton v. United Airlines (1999), per-
sons whose mental impairment is mitigated by psy-
chotropic medication are generally not considered to
be disabled under the ADA (Alderdice v. American
Health Holding, Inc., 2000; Spades v. City of Walnut
Ridge, 1999). If such persons fail to take their medica-
tion, they may fail to be otherwise qualified to per-
form their jobs, still leaving them without ADA
protection (Stefan, 2002). Third, Daily Labor Report
(1997) indicates that the ADA does not prevent an
employer from maintaining a workplace free from
violence or threats. The burden on the employer is to
make an individualized assessment of the employee’s
ability (or lack thereof) to perform the job safely,
which means the employer must be able to indicate
identifiable, specific behaviors for this individual
that would pose a “direct threat” of violence
(Paetzold, 1998).
A direct threat is statutorily defined as a “significant
risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be
eliminated by reasonable accommodation” (§ 12,111).
Direct threats can be aggressive verbal or other behav-
iors that stem from an underlying psychological dis-
order. A person with a mental disorder who sometimes
experiences impulsive, agitated, aggressive behav-
iors that could result in direct threats to others prob-
ably cannot be made “otherwise qualified” through
reasonable accommodation (e.g., Jones v. New York
City Housing Authority, 1996) and need not be hired
or retained. Although dismissal almost immediately
after serious verbal threats has been found to be
acceptable by the courts (e.g., Fenton v. Pritchard
Corp., 1998), a more elaborate risk assessment involv-
ing determination of the nature, likelihood, severity,
and duration of potential harm to others provides the
safest path for employers under the ADA (see School
Board v. Arline, 1987).
Research Questions
Legal protection for persons having mental dis-
abilities suggests the following research questions for
organizational researchers:
• What relationship, if any, exists between mental ill-
ness and aggressive behaviors, particularly in the
workplace context? Are some mental illnesses more
likely to lead to aggression in the workplace context?
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 2, 2014
• Is an increase in the percentage of an organization’s
workforce who are disabled associated with an
increase in the incidence of aggressive behaviors or
workplace violence?
• Do workplace threats have predictive validity in
regard to subsequent aggressive behavior?
• How can organizations most appropriately conduct
risk assessments without violating the ethical
and/or legal rights of disabled workers?
Discussion
The legal landscape for employers in regard to
workplace violence can be complex and confusing.
We have examined the major legal theories that are
implicated when workplace violence between
coworkers occurs. Legal theories make many
assumptions about human behavior and the ability of
employers to assess potential for aggression and/or
violence. These sometimes-subtle assumptions can
have an enormous impact on the outcomes of work-
place violence lawsuits. Most organizational research
on workplace aggression has used a social psychol-
ogy approach to study the phenomenon, but this
approach has limitations for considering legal theory
assumptions underlying liability for workplace vio-
lence. We have adopted a more practice-based
approach that suggests important research questions
surrounding the testing of the assumptions that
ground legal theory. Investigation of, and answers to,
these questions will be of particular importance to
organizations struggling to create positive work
climates and avoid liability for workplace violence.
References
Alderdice v. American Health Holding, Inc., 118 F. Supp. 2d
856 (S.D. Ohio 2000).
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-
12213 (West 1993).
Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469 (3rd Cir. 1990).
Bates, N. D., & Donnell, S. (1993). Major developments in
premises security liability. Sudbury, MA: Liability
Consultants.
Bennett v. K-Mart Corp., 10 Fed. Appx 520, 2001 WL 537786
(9th Cir. 2001).
Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).
Byford, K. U. (1996). The quest for the honest worker: A
proposal for regulation of integrity testing. Southern
Methodist University Law Review, 49, 329.
 Paetzold et al. / LIABILITY FOR WORKPLACE VIOLENCE 369
Coath v. Jones. 277 Pa. Super. 479, 419 A.2d 1249 (Pa. Super.
Ct. 1980).
Daily Labor Report. (1997, March 27). EEOC guidance on
psychiatric disabilities and the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
Daily Labor Report. (1999, November 9). Reports of work-
place violence increase, employers step up security, survey
says. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
Dewitt v. Carsten, 941 F. Supp. 1232 (N.D. Ga. 1996).
Duda v. Board of Education, 133 F.3d 1054 (7th Cir. 1998).
Duffy v. City of Oceanside, 224 Cal. Rptr. 879 (Cal. Ct. App.
1986).
Estate of Arrington v. Fields, 578 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. Civ. App.
1979).
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1995). Uniform crime report:
Crime in the U.S., 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice.
Fenton v. Pritchard Corp., 17 F. Supp. 2d 824 (N.D. Ind.
1998).
Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against
women in the workplace. American Psychologist, 48,
1070-1076.
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). A popcorn metaphor for
employee aggression. In R. W. Griffin, A. M. O’Leary-
Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in
organizations (pp. 43-81). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Goldberg, J. E. (1994). Employees with mental and emo-
tional problems—Workplace security and implications
of state discrimination laws, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, workers’ com-
pensation, and related issues. Stetson Law Review, 24,
200-240.
Hall v. Bodine Elec. Co., 276 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2002).
Jones v. New York City Housing Authority, No. 94 Civ. 3364
(S.D.N.Y. 1996).
Link, B. G., & Stueve, A. (1994). Psychotic symptoms and
the violent/illegal behavior of mental patients com-
pared to community controls. In J. Monahan & H. J.
Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder: Developments
in risk assessment (pp. 137-159). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Martinko, M. J., & Zellars, K. L. (1998). Toward a theory of
workplace violence and aggression: A cognitive appraisal
perspective. In R. W. Griffin, A. M. O’Leary-Kelly, &
J. M. Collins (Ed.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations
(pp. 1-42). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Mellon Mortgage Co. v. Holder, 5 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. 1999).
Morris, F. C., Jr. (1999). Workplace privacy issues: Avoiding
liability. American Law Institute-American Bar Association,
697. Retrieved January 10, 2003, from Westlaw ALI-ABA
database.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Aggression in the
workplace. In R. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial
behavior in organizations (pp. 37-67). London: Sage.
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 2, 2014
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence
and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific
forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of
Management, 24, 391-419.
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D. J. (1996).
Organization-motivated aggression: A research frame-
work. Academy of Management Review, 21, 225-253.
O’Leary-Kelly, A., Paetzold, R. L., & Griffin, R. W. (2000).
Sexual harassment as aggressive behavior: An actor-
based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25,
372-388.
OSHA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678 (West, 1970).
Paetzold, R. L. (1998). Workplace violence and employer
liability: Implications for organizations. In R. W. Griffin,
A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional
behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behaviors
(pp. 143-164). Stamford, CT: JAI.
Paetzold, R. L. (2005). How courts, employers, and the ADA
disable persons with bipolar disorder. Employee Rights and
Employment Policy Journal, 9, 293-382
Paetzold, R. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. (1996). The implications
of U.S. Supreme Court and circuit court decisions for
hostile environment sexual harassment. In M. Stockdale
(Ed.), Sexual harassment: Perspectives, frontiers, and response
strategies (pp. 85-104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Prosser, W., & Keeton, W. P. (1984). On torts (5th ed.). St. Paul,
MN: West.
Reese v. Meritor Automotive, Inc., 5 Fed. Appx. 239, 2001
WL 227329 (4th Cir. 2001).
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of
deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scal-
ing study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
School Board v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987).
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the work-
place: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interac-
tional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.
Smith, K. G. (1999). Violence in the workplace: The armed
and angry employee. Fall Brief, 29, 8.
Spades v. City of Walnut Ridge, 186 F.3d 97 (8th Cir. 1999).
Stefan, S. (2002). Hollow promises: Employment discrimination
against people with mental disabilities. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Stradley v. LaFourche Communications, Inc., 869 F. Supp.
442 (E.D. La. 1994).
Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
Tecumseh Products Co. v. Rigdon, 250 Ga. App. 739, 552
S.E.2d 910 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
Thatcher v. Brennan, 657 F. Supp. 6 (S.D. Miss. 1986).
Thompson v. Borg-Warner Protective Services Corp., 1996
WL 162990 (N.D. Cal. 1996).
U.S. Department of Justice. (1999). Bureau of Justice
Statistics violence in the workplace, 1993-99. Retrieved
January 10, 2003, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs
Wise v. Complete Staffing Services, Inc., 56 S.W.3d 900 (Tex.
App. 2001).
370 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / December 2007

Wood v. Astleford, 412 N.W.2d 753 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). ANNE O’LEARY-KELLY is a professor at the University of Arkansas.
Yunker v. Honeywell, Inc., 496 N.W.2d 419 (Minn. Ct. App. She is well published in the areas of workplace violence, sexual harass-
1993). ment, and other forms of discrimination.

RAMONA L. PAETZOLD is a professor and Mays Faculty Fellow at RICKY W. GRIFFIN is a distinguished professor of management and
Texas A & M University. She has published in numerous law and man- executive associate dean at Texas A & M University’s Mays Business
agement journals. Her research interests include sexual harassment, School. In addition to numerous well-regarded journal articles and text-
workplace violence, and disabilities discrimination. books, his most recent work is within the field of workplace violence.

Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 2, 2014