California’s Workplace Violence Prevention Law, also known as SB553, is reshaping labor and workplace regulations across the country. Are US businesses prepared for the new mandate?
Signed into law last September, the law came into effect on July 1 and requires nearly all businesses operating within the state to develop comprehensive violence prevention plans. The bill aims to safeguard employees and establish more robust employer protocols for dealing with threats in the workplace.
Employers of all industries (except healthcare) with 10 or more employees in California must augment their injury prevention program by developing and implementing a written workplace violence prevention plan, providing employee training on workplace violence, record keeping and reporting, and assigning designated roles to develop and implement this plan.
Organizations with fewer than 10 employees with workplaces that are publicly accessible (such as retail stores) also need to be SB553 compliant.
“The amendments to the labor law now require all employers to have a workplace violence prevention plan in place,” explained Lucy Straker (pictured right), US focus group leader - political violence & deadly weapons protection at Beazley. “The law impacts most businesses across California, or with exposure in California.”
Compliance with SB553 goes beyond documentation and requires a multifaceted, cultural approach to workplace violence prevention. Failure to comply also has negative repercussions.
“It’s not just in prevention, but also in the response and documentation,” James Rizzo (pictured left), product leader - US D&O, at Beazley.
One of the initial hurdles for many businesses is awareness. Straker noted a significant gap in knowledge among industry professionals. She said that at a recent webinar facilitated by Beazley, nearly half of attendees weren’t aware of SB553 and its implications, highlighting the urgency of education for brokers and insureds.
“Among the insurance brokers present [at the webinar], some had exposure in California, and some did not. Despite the focus on SB553, 45% of the attendees were unaware of the law and its implications,” said Straker. “Initially, many are still in denial or unaware of the requirements, leading them to scramble to catch up.”
According to the Beazley specialists, compliance with SB553 involves several key components.
First, businesses must conduct a thorough hazard assessment, which means identifying potential risks and vulnerabilities within the workplace. Second, businesses must create a multidisciplinary team, which is a crucial step in developing an effective workplace violence prevention plan. This team should include representatives from various departments, such as security, facilities, human resources, and legal.
Employee training is another cornerstone of SB553 compliance. According to Rizzo, it’s not enough for employers to have a plan on paper; employees must be well-versed in recognizing and responding to potential threats. Regular training sessions and drills can help ensure employees are prepared for various scenarios.
“Minimally, I think that they should be able to identify threats and be knowledgeable about how to respond in the event of a crisis,” Rizzo said.
Documentation and reporting are also critical under SB553. Businesses must keep detailed records of all workplace violence incidents, no matter how minor. This includes maintaining a log of violent incidents and documenting all steps taken to mitigate risks and respond to incidents.
According to Straker, thorough documentation not only aids in compliance but also provides a valuable resource for continuous improvement.
“The plan has to be in place at all times, all-encompassing, addressing all areas of the business, and it has to be embedded from top-down and bottom-up,” she told Insurance Business.
Companies do not need to be headquartered in California to fall under the purview of SB553 as long as they have a presence or exposure there.
However, some exemptions exist, such as healthcare facilities, law enforcement, correctional institutions, and small businesses with fewer than 10 employees that are not open to the public. Teleworking arrangements, where the employer has no oversight of the facility, are also exempt.
Under California’s Workplace Violence Prevention Law, companies must ensure they cover all bases, from hazard assessments and employee training to maintaining a log of violent incidents. These comprehensive requirements aim to create safer working environments but also pose significant implementation challenges, particularly for smaller businesses.
“Many companies will be developing these processes for the first time. These challenges will likely be greater for smaller organizations than for large corporate entities with established risk management frameworks,” Rizzo pointed out. “However, both small and large operators will be held to the same standards, making compliance more burdensome for smaller operators.”
Beyond regulatory fines, non-compliance can lead to severe legal and reputational consequences. Businesses may face lawsuits for failure to supervise, control, or prevent workplace violence.
For publicly traded companies, violent incidents can lead to stock drops and securities class action lawsuits, further emphasizing the need for robust prevention measures.
Finally, insurance coverage is another critical consideration for businesses under SB553. Straker noted that non-compliance could impact a company’s ability to secure or maintain insurance coverage.
“When businesses buy insurance to cover acts of workplace violence and they aren’t taking the necessary steps to become SB553 compliant, what does that look like to an insurance carrier?” asked Straker.
“It’s possible that insurers might not offer coverage if businesses aren’t taking steps to become SB553 compliant.”
What are your thoughts on California’s SB553? Please share your comments below.
