California Releases Further Revisions to Draft General Industry Workplace Violence Prevention Standard

California recently released the latest iteration of its proposed regulatory standard to implement the state’s law imposing workplace violence prevention safety requirements on nearly every employer in California. A period of public comment on the proposal and the new revisions is open through June 1, 2026. Employers with any employees in California can consider whether they wish to comment. A final version accompanied by formal rulemaking support documents is expected to emerge in the coming months, likely without much variation from the recently released proposal. Employers can prepare for compliance by reviewing how the recent version differs from the requirements that already apply under Labor Code § 6401.9.

How Did We Get Here?

On September 30, 2023, California enacted SB 553, the first general industry workplace violence prevention safety law in the country. Employers covered by the law, codified at Labor Code § 6401.9, already allocated considerable time, costs, and attention prior to the July 1, 2024 effective date by creating plans, policies, and procedures to comply with the highly prescriptive workplace violence prevention standard. Although Cal/OSHA had already been working toward a general industry standard following its work on a workplace violence prevention standard for healthcare environments in 2016, the legislature in 2023 created the general industry requirements directly through SB 553, modeled in many respects on the standards developed for the healthcare industry. The 2023 law included a requirement for Cal/OSHA to implement a regulation corresponding to the detailed statutory requirements – with an express deadline that such a standard be adopted no later than December 31, 2026. The timeframe was challenging from the outset, given that different requirements apply when a California agency makes a rule. In this latest round of revisions, Cal/OSHA seeks to comply with SB 553’s statutory deadline, while also balancing other priorities.

What Does the New Version Change?

The key differences between earlier iterations and updated draft standard include: 

• Expanding the scope of the standard to cover employer-provided transportation; 
• Limiting the exemption for non-public workplaces to employers with fewer than 10 employees at the place of employment at all times during the preceding 365 days; 
• Redefining key terms, including “Authorized Employee Representative,” “Designated Representative,” and “Threat of Violence,” among others, to align with existing definitions in regulations and broaden the range of reportable and assessable conduct; 
• Noting that employers are not responsible for employee texts or personal social media they are not reasonably aware of;
• Updating the examples of workplace violence hazards used to help employers in their hazard assessments to include working alone, poor lighting or blocked visibility, unauthorized access points, lack of escape routes, exchange of money or valuables, public contact, late-night work, inadequate staffing, lack of security staffing, selling/providing alcohol, marijuana, or pharmaceutical drugs, and stalking connected to the workplace if brought to the employer’s attention or otherwise reasonably known;
• Revising hazard-identification procedures to require inspections when the plan is first established, after each incident, when workplace or job changes create new hazards, when new substances/processes/procedures/equipment create a new hazard, and when the employer becomes aware of a new or previously unrecognized hazard;
• Clarifying that engineering and work practice controls must be implemented to eliminate or minimize exposure;
• Noting that trauma counseling for all employees affected by an incident, if provided by the employer or its workers’ compensation carrier, does not need to be requested before it can be considered an effective procedure for post-incident response and investigation;
• Indicating that an employer may not retaliate against an employee involved in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of others, but may enforce policies designed to avoid physical confrontation and prevent injuries;
• Explaining that “appropriate staffing levels” as a “work practice control” means staffing sufficient “to maintain order in the facility and respond to workplace violence incidents in a timely manner”; and
• Requiring the employer to create and maintain for five years records of reports of threats/incidents/concerns, employer evaluations of those reports, corrective actions taken, and information provided to employees and their designated representatives.

What Are the Implications if this Version Is Approved? 

Major compliance challenges will follow if California adopts the current draft standard. Combined with Cal/OSHA’s historical enforcement efforts, the draft suggests that Cal/OSHA will continue to enforce blanket rules on all industries, regardless of practicality. Notwithstanding the circumstances, employers with California employees would face broader coverage of worksites and employer-provided transportation, narrower grounds for exemption, expanded planning and reporting obligations, increased staffing oversight, and more employee rights to access workplace violence records. Additionally, the proposed changes emphasize a “reasonable belief” standard, leaving the scope of constructive knowledge open to interpretation by the Appeals Board, which has historically been unfavorable to California employers. California employers will need to develop compliant procedures for anonymous reporting, supervisor-related complaint channels, emergency response, hazard assessment, post-incident response, and annual plan review, among other things. Given the standard is still relatively new, employers can expect Cal/OSHA to have formed its own opinions on what employers can and should do to comply with the standard, even if such opinions are not based on in-depth knowledge of a particular industry. 

Littler’s Workplace Safety and Workplace Violence Prevention and Crisis Response Practice Groups are closely monitoring the continuing evolution of the regulatory proposal and the anticipated completion of a rulemaking process before December 31, 2026. Employers with any employees in California should continue following this issue and coordinate with their employment counsel regarding the regulation’s status and related compliance preparations.