Review the legal issues associated with threat assessment as well as any previous information detailing or referring to a Threat Assessment investigation, process or checklist.

Create a complete investigative checklist for Case #1 that includes steps you would need to take, information you would need to gather, and sources for that information. The investigative objective is to be able to provide an accurate threat level and provide the information to support it. Be mindful that sometimes you have to obtain one thing before you can obtain another. When that is the case, detail the path to that information.

Organize the information in a way that would make sense to someone using the checklist without you. Format it in a professional, useable form, using any of the previous templates or checklists you've seen in this course as inspiration.

• Note: You do not need to provide case-specific information as though you have conducted the investigation (i.e., the "answers", but you do need to make it case-specific as though you're preparing the investigation for this case

Case #1: Zeke Dillinger, a student in his second year at college, wears military fatigue every day. One of his instructors, Melinda Warren, just moved to the area and joined the college faculty this year. Warren reported Dillinger to the team because she thinks he is scary and that its weird he wears fatigue all the time.

Warren said Dillinger's grades are good and that he has one or two friends in her class, but other students find him strange and go out of their way to avoid him. She doesn't want him in her class and wants the team to do something about it.

Legal Issues To some extent, the law puts conflicting pressures on employers and others concerned with preventing or mitigating workplace violence. O n the one hand, businesses are under a variety of legal obligations to safeguard their employees' well-being and securi- ty. O ccupational safety laws impose a general requirement to maintain a safe workplace, which embraces safety from violence. For example, the "G eneral D uty Clause" of the O ccupational Safety and H ealth A ct requires employers to have a workplace that is "free from recognized hazards." Workers compensation laws, similarly, make employers responsible for job-related injuries. Civil rights laws require employers to protect employees against various forms of harassment, including threats or violence. In addi- tion, employers may face civil liability after a workplace violence incident on a number of groundsif there was negligence in hiring or retaining a dangerous person, for exam- ple, or a failure to provide proper supervision, training or physical safety measures. A t the same time, the law requires employers to safeguard due process and other employee rights. Privacy, antidefamation and antidiscrimination laws may limit an employer's ability to find out about the background of a present or prospective employ- ee. The possibility of a wrongful termination lawsuit can make a company reluctant to fire someone even when there is evidence that the person may be dangerous, and can make the process a long, difficult struggle if the company does decide to seek termina- tion. E ven the A mericans with D isabilities A ct can sometimes pose obstacles in dealing with a potentially violent employee. E mployee rights and workplace safety concerns can also collide over such issues as whether and when a worker can be compelled to get counseling or treatment as a condition of keeping his job. To a large degree, these dilemmas mirror the inherent tension in a legal system with dual objectives: protecting the general good, while also protecting individual rights. Just as in every other legal field, workplace safety law has to strike a balance between those two purposes. None of the participants at the NCAVC Symposium questioned the prin- ciples of respecting due process and workers' rights or the need to balance safety pre- cautions and antiviolence policies against appropriate privacy protection. The issue is where the boundary should be drawn. O ne area where participants expressed considerable concern was the restrictive effect of potential civil liability on disseminating information about employees with records of past violence or other troubling behavior on the job. Those restrictions can significantly limit the employers' ability either to screen out dangerous people before hiring, or to obtain information that would be highly relevant in a threat assessment when an inci- dent has occurred. For example, though rules vary somewhat from one jurisdiction to another, law enforce- ment agencies are ordinarily not allowed to disclose criminal records or inform employ- ers if a worker or job applicant has been convicted of a violent crimethis even though the conviction was a matter of public record. Similarly, strict confidentiality rules shield medical and mental health records that can also have direct relevance to assessing the risk of violent behavior. 47

Legal considerations also inhibit the exchange of information among employers. In some cases where a company has negotiated the termination of an employee who it felt was dan- gerous, the settlement includes a confidentiality clause barring the company from disclosing the employee's conduct to anyone elseincluding to another company that may be consid- ering the person for employment. (At times the settlement may even require purging all reports of misconduct from the company's own records.) Even where there is no confiden- tiality agreement, concern over liability for defamation or privacy infringement can make employers hesitant to warn others about a possibly dangerous past or present employee. In reality, damaging but truthful information can often be disclosed without significant legal risk. But in today's litigious climate, executives and legal advisers too often tend to conclude that saying nothing is the safest course. A s a result, human resources officials frequently resort to a kind of coded communication to alert a prospective employer of potential problems. Some companies ask terminated employees to sign a waiver allow- ing the release of information to a new or prospective employer. If the employee refus- es to sign, disclosing the refusal to the new employer can also serve as a warning sign. O r the message may be sent by a no-comment response: "We are not at liberty to say anything about that person at this time." These oblique, wink-and-nod warnings no doubt help companies avoid hiring some problem applicants. But coded messages are a poor substitute for solid, clear, factual information when an employee or applicant may be a danger to coworkers. O verwhelm- ingly, NCAVC's Symposium participants supported reexamining legal restraints and seeking more rational rules that will better serve to protect all employees from work- place violence. A mong the possibilities discussed were: Standardizing guidelines so that employers will know when and how they can warn others about an employee's record of threats or violence. Modifying the restrictions on law enforcement agencies so they can release relevant criminal record information when someone appears to pose a significant danger to fellow workers. Considering ways to give companies carefully drawn exemption from liability for dis- closing damaging information if it is accurate and disclosed in a good-faith effort to help protect other employees' safety. R eassessing confidentiality requirements for medical and mental health histories and determining when warnings of potential violent conduct may be appropriate. Clarifying guidelines for when and how a dangerous or potentially dangerous employ- ee can be required to undergo mental health evaluation, counseling, or treatment. Meanwhile, within existing legal boundaries, awareness and education programs can help executives, managers, human resources officials, and legal advisers understand what is permissible, and when and how they can share information that may help avoid a vio- lent incident. Similarly, employees can be trained in formulating antiviolence policies and disciplinary procedures that will meet due process standards while effectively pro- tecting workplace safety.