1. What are the major legal and human resource issues that an organization has to deal with when developing and enforcing its workplace violence policy?

2. Assume that you have been invited to a meeting with the three Nordstrom co-presidents and asked to develop a workplace violence policy. Discuss how you would enforce it.

 NORDSTROM: THE WORKPLACE VIOLENCE DILEMMA   Black Friday, the day after American Thanksgiving, marked the official start of the Christmas shopping season in the United States. It was a day that generally brought smiles to the executives of retailing giant Nordstrom, Inc. (Nordstrom). However, on November 28, 2014, Nordstrom had to deal with the tragic loss of Nadia Ezaldein, a seasonal worker at a Nordstrom store in downtown Chicago. She had been killed in a workplace violence incident involving her former boyfriend. The event was a reminder of an earlier incident involving an Indianapolis-based employee, Whitney Walker, who was terminated in November 2013. Even though Nordstrom had been a strong advocate for workplace safety, the retailer had endured public scrutiny after terminating Walker, who was victimized by her ex-boyfriend. These two workplace violence incidents made it necessary for Nordstrom's management to determine how best to protect all Nordstrom stakeholders in the future.   NADIA EZALDEIN  Ezaldein was a seasonal worker at a Nordstrom store in downtown Chicago, Illinois. She had dated Marcus Dee from August 2012 until December 2013. After ending the relationship, she endured physical, verbal, and emotional abuse from Dee, who even threatened to harm or kill himself. On November 28, 2014, Dee walked into the Nordstrom store where Ezaldein was working and used a gun to kill Ezaldein and then himself.2 The company issued a statement through a spokesperson stating that "at Nordstrom, we're a family. Our people are very impacted by this and we're doing our best to support them." Following the fatal shooting of Ezaldein, the Nordstrom store was shut down and remained closed on November 29the day after Black Friday, normally considered the most important Christmas shopping day for retailers. When the store reopened, on November 30, Nordstrom made grief counsellors available to all Chicago store employees. The tragic event created a sense of uneasiness among Christmas shoppers and retail employees throughout the Chicago area.3   WHITNEY WALKER  Walker worked at a Nordstrom store in 2013 in Indianapolis, Indiana. She had filed a protective order against her former boyfriend, Kevin Singh, and vacated her apartment in November 2012. Managers at the store became cognizant of Walker's situation after noticing that she refused telephone calls from Singh at work.  "They [Nordstrom] made me sign a contract that I would keep them aware of everything that was happening in the case and every time he contacted me, or I would be terminated," Walker said. "I wanted to keep my job. I signed it." The contract required her to keep Nordstrom abreast of her situation or face termination. Walker provided Nordstrom with regular updates, but found some questions from the company's human resources department intrusive. "They [Nordstrom] wanted to know the history of our relationship," Walker said.4  In November 2013, Nordstrom fired Walker, claiming that the personal situation presented a threat to her, her co-workers, and store customers. Nordstrom also offered Walker a settlement of US$5,0005 with the stipulation that she refrain from suing the company or publicly discussing the proposed settlement. Walker took some time to consider the financial settlement, but when she later decided to accept it, Nordstrom told Walker that the offer was no longer available. At that point, Walker contacted the Indianapolis television station WRTV 6 to share her story.6 In 2015, Singh was found guilty of stalking and was sentenced to eight years in prison.7  Indiana did not have a state-wide mandate regarding protective orders in the workplace, so rules varied from one work environment to another. For instance, the law permitted employers to request their own protective order to keep away any person seeking to harm an employee. In Indiana, employers had considerable latitude in matters pertaining to handling their employees. According to Indiana attorney Amy DeBrota, "In Indiana, the employers hold all the cards when it comes to what they can and can't do in handling their employees."8 Chris Schrader, a human resources expert who helped executives handle intricate issues, including protective orders, stated that although Nordstrom's questions might have seemed intrusive, they were intended to assess risk. "I think it's best to tell the employer, especially if you expect them to participate in your protection to the extent they can."9  Walker suggested that she was victimized twiceonce by her former boyfriend and then by Nordstrom. She felt safe at the store, she claimed, but Nordstrom "took a really horrible time in my life and made it so much worse." She continued, "You don't have to be a victim. You don't have to resign to that role. You don't have to let someone re-victimize you."10   NORDSTROM  In 1901, John Nordstrom and his friend Carl Wallin, who owned a shoe-repair shop, opened Wallin & Nordstrom, a small Seattle shoe store that provided the foundation for Nordstrom. Over the next 100 years, the small store became one of the foremost fashion specialty retailers.11 Nordstrom placed importance on corporate social responsibility and emphasized care for its communities and respect for the environment.  In 2014, after the WRTV 6 local news report aired information on the incident involving Walker's firing, Nordstrom issued a response. Nordstrom stated that the company helped employees who were victimized by domestic violence to "develop a safety plan," and in extreme cases, it engaged workplace violence consultants.   Referring to the Walker firing, Nordstrom believed that her situation "posed an extreme safety risk" to "her co-workers, and our customers," calling the decision to fire Walker "extremely difficult." Nordstrom later decided to extend the $5,000 settlement offer once again to provide Walker "with resources to help find a safer environment." As alleged by Walker, Nordstrom had rescinded the $5,000 settlement and reconsidered the settlement only after she approached the local television news station.12 However, Nordstrom explained its position on the incident differently:  These situations are never easy. We have to balance the needs and safety of our employees going through tough situations such as this with the needs and safety of our employees and customers. In Ms. Walker's case, we came to the conclusion that her continuing to report to work posed an extreme safety risk to Ms. Walker, her co-workers, and our customers. As a result, we had to make the extremely difficult decision to separate her from Nordstrom. To provide her with resources to help her find a safer environment, we offered Ms. Walker financial support to help ease the transition.  Nordstrom also detailed its policy for addressing employees with protective orders:  We take the safety of our employees and our customers very seriously. When an employee is in a domestic violence situation, we work closely with them to help ensure their safety in our store every day. This includes creating a workplace safety plan and maintaining ongoing communication with them about their situation, so that we may continue to keep them as safe as possible while they're at work. In extreme situations, we retain the services of a national expert in workplace violence to help us with our assessment and approach.  We partner with the employee to understand the situation and develop a safety plan. We ask that employees be transparent with us so that we can best assess the impact the situation has on their safety and the safety of our other employees and customers. The information they share with us is confidential, and is treated as such. Our goal is not to invade their privacy, but to obtain the information needed to help ensure they, their co-workers, and our customers can come to Nordstrom and feel protected and secure.  In this case, information Ms. Walker shared with us was treated with the highest confidentiality and only those employees who needed to know in order to protect her and her co-workers were informed Every situation is unique. In addition to working with them to develop a safety plan, we have ongoing conversations about their situation so we can understand their ongoing individual needs and identify ways we can continue to help support them. This includes resources offered through our Employee Assistance Program.13  With respect to allegedly withdrawing the $5,000 financial settlement, Nordstrom responded that Walker had waited two months before she responded to their offer. "Our goal has always been to help ensure Ms. Walker's safety. We hope the money we offered and paid to Ms. Walker will help her to re-establish herself in a safe environment."14   WORKPLACE VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES  Workplace violence referred to "any act of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behaviour at the work site."15 Workplace violence included threats, verbal abuse, physical assaults, and, in extreme cases, homicide.16 Although the media tended to focus on workplace violence   events that resulted in homicides, most events involved non-fatal, serious injuries to the victim.17 Many organizations had an "it won't happen to us" attitude; however, workplace violence could affect any industry.18  The workplace environment was not restricted to co-workers; it could include clients, customers, and corporate guests. Workplace violence tended to be classified into four categories: criminal intent, customer/client, worker-on-worker, and personal relationship.19 Criminal intent referred to crime where the perpetrator had no relationship with the organization or a particular employee. Rather, the violence occurred while committing a crime (e.g., robbery, trespassing, or terrorism). Customer/client cases involved a perpetrator who had a relationship with the organization and became violent while interfacing with the organization. This category of perpetrators included customers, healthcare patients, students, and prison inmates; victims included police officers, nurses, teachers/professors, and prison guards. In a worker-on- worker case, the perpetrator was a current or former employee who victimized another current or former employee in the workplace. In the personal relationship category, the perpetrator had a personal relationship with an intended victim, rather than with the organization. A substantial portion of this category involved domestic violence victims who were assaulted and/or threatened in the workplace.  In 2014, roughly two million workers reported that they had experienced workplace violence in the United States, although a large number of workplace violence cases remained unreported. In 2014, 19 per cent of workplace fatalities involving women were caused by homicide. Of all female workplace homicides, roughly one-third were caused by relatives or domestic partners.20 A large number of workplace violence incidents stemmed from domestic violence. According to a workplace violence expert, "Domestic abusers may not know where their victims live, but they do know one thing: where they work. They know what time you get there, what time you take your break. That's how abuse moves to the workplace."21  Workplace violence could subject an organization to various legal expenses: attorney or lawyer fees, court costs, and civil liability costs. An employer could be vulnerable and incur tort liability from claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,22 the Family Medical Leave Act,23 Workers' Compensation, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), unemployment, breach of contract, and various state-specific laws. In addition to legal issues, workplace violence (and other harassment-related behaviour) could undermine employees' productivity and elevate their stress (e.g., fear of job loss), leading to injury, absenteeism, and insurance claims.24  The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) mandated that employers had a duty to provide a safe working environment. The OSH Act applied to employers directly through OSHA or through an OSHA-approved program in a particular state. An employer had to comply with a general duty clause to "furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees." OSHA interpreted the general duty clause as an employer's "legal obligation to provide a safe workplace." 25  Under the OSH Act, an employer was not strictly liable for workplace violence.26 OSHA could issue citations to employers for non-compliance with the general duty clause of the OSH Act; however, the Secretary of the Department of Labor needed to prove the following factors:  The employer failed to keep the workplace free from a hazard that employees were exposed to. The hazard was recognized. The hazard was likely to cause death or serious physical harm. There was a feasible and economically viable way to correct the hazard.27   Violations of the general duty clause provided no federal criminal penalty as punishment. An employer could be cited, and even required to implement a workplace violence prevention program, in one of the following two situations: (a) the employer experienced incidents of workplace violence; or (b) the employer became aware of threats, intimidation, or other potential indicators showing that the potential for violence in the workplace existed or had the potential to exist.  Workplace violence placed many organizations in a difficult and somewhat uncomfortable position, especially if layoffs had recently occurred or were imminent. Incidents of workplace violence received considerable attention from the national and local media, even though they tended to be rare events. For an organization, the threat of a lawsuit was common with any incident of workplace violence.28 Many claims involved an employee's objection to discipline related to allegations of workplace violence, or to the organization's claim that the employee had become violent.29 The potential for workplace violence presented a difficult situation for an organization to effectively manage. It had an obligation to protect its employees and customers by identifying employees who represented potential threats.30 However, it also needed to balance that obligation with the provision of constitutional and contractual due process and rights to privacy against profiling, labelling, and discrimination.31  Organizations could face tort liability if an employee was stalked or harmed by a domestic abuser on the organization's property, or if the employee was contacted by the abuser during work hours. The organization could be accused of having failed to introduce sufficient security measures. Other employees could also raise claims against the organization from a domestic violence incident in the workplace resulting in injury. The organization could also face a discrimination lawsuit if it terminated a victimized employee for inappropriate reasons.32  To avoid being liable, an organization had to establish a workplace violence policy that covered three major areas: (a) informed employees that threats or violent acts were strictly prohibited on the organization's property and in any work-related activity; (b) established a safe reporting process; and (c) established a disciplinary process for any violators who worked for the organization. Furthermore, hazards could be industry-specific. As such, an employer needed to take actions that minimized risks associated with workplace violence, especially if the risks were recognized within the industry.33   POLICIES AND PREVENTION  Policies alone could not prevent workplace violence with 100 percent certainty. However, a prevention and intervention policy needed to convey to all employees that the organization had zero tolerance for threats and violence. The policy needed to underscore the organization's ongoing commitment to ensuring a safe working environment. Moreover, the policy needed to establish behavioural guidelines that "prohibit all violence, threats, and behavior that reasonably could be interpreted as an intent to cause physical harm, either on-site or off-site during work-related activities."34  According to the ASIS International and Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) standard, an organization's workplace violence policy needed to include several elements:  Clearly define unacceptable behavior that is prohibited by the policy . . . ; (2) regulate or prohibit weapons on-site and during work-related activities to the extent permitted by applicable laws . . . ; (3) require the prompt reporting of suspected violations of the policy and of any circumstances that raise a concern for safety from violence . . . ; (4) provide multiple avenues for reporting . . . ; (5) assure employees that reports made under the policy will be treated with the highest degree of discretion and will promptly be invetigated...; (6) include a commitment to non retaliation toward employee who make a good faith report under the policy; (7) imoise discipline for policy violation, as appropriate, up to and including termnation (8) require or encourage employees to inform clearly defined personnel of any protective or restraing orde that they have obtained that lists the work place as a protected area.  Also, the ASIS SHRM standard recommend esablishing an interdisciplinary team that was trained to intervene in violent incidients or in cases of disturbing conduct as secified in the organixation's workplace violence policy, The policy needed to include a set of procedures for the interention team for investigating, managing, and reporting workplace violence incidients. The policy needed to includeds a specific guideline for emergencies or elevated concerns about potential behaviors as specified in the policy. In addition, the policy needed to specify a training protocol for intervention team members, The policy needed to provide a process to centralize records for all workplace violence incidents and to ensure proper confidentiality, The policy also needed to address requirements for organizational security, employment, or managerial processes that were consistant with and further promoted the workplace violence prevention and intervention objectives,  Conclusion Ezaldein was killed on her 22nd birthday, Her family had planned a surprise birthday party after she completed her shift at Nordstrom. Ezaldeiin''s co- workers at the Chicago Nordstrom store did not return to work the following day. Chirstmas shoppers were greeted wth a sign that stated, "Due to the tragic situation that occurredd in our store yesterday, our store is closed today, Saturday , November 29." The Ezaldein tragedy made it essential for Nordstrom's managers to dedicate themselves to providing a safe workplace for employees and customers, and achieve excellence in workplace violence prevention policies. FUrthermore, Nordstrom's managers recognized that effective and long- lasting workplace policies were urgently needed to provide comfort and security to both employeees and customers.