As reported here, California recently took steps to provide employers additional tools to combat workplace violence, including requiring a written workplace violence prevention plan, by enacting Senate Bill 553. Effective January 1, 2025, Senate Bill 428 makes further changes to existing procedures for workplace violence restraining orders, and creates limitations to prevent employers from using such orders to restrict labor-related speech and activities. These changes are codified as section 527.8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Employers in California may ask for a court order to protect one or more employees from a person who has stalked, harassed, been violent or threatened violence at the workplace. Abuse at the workplace can include threats of violence that happen in person, over the phone, by mail, or online, and following an employee to or from work or during work hours. The employer can ask for protection for an employee who has been the target of abuse, other employees who may also be in danger, and the family or household members of employees.
Although an individual may seek a restraining order on behalf of him or herself or family members, only employers may ask for a workplace violence restraining order. A court may issue a workplace violence restraining order against anyone who has been violent or threatened violence against one or more employees at a workplace.
SB 428 also permits employers to seek a temporary restraining order on behalf of employees who have suffered harassment. A court may grant such a temporary restraining order upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence that an employee has suffered harassment, that great or irreparable harm would result to an employee, and that the respondent’s course of conduct served no legitimate purpose.
SB 428 requires that, before an employer seeks a temporary restraining order, they must provide the employee whose protection is sought the opportunity to decline to be named in the order. An employer whose employee has requested to not be named in the temporary restraining order is not prohibited from seeking a temporary restraining order on behalf of other employees.
Lastly, SB 428 expressly prohibits a court from issuing a workplace violence restraining order if that order would prohibit speech or activities protected by the federal National Labor Relations Act or specified provisions of law governing the communications of exclusive representatives of public employees.
This publication is published by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. The publication is intended to present an overview of current legal trends; no article should be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters. Articles may be reprinted with permission and acknowledgment. ECJ is a registered service mark of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. All rights reserved.
- Partner
Pooja S. Nair is a business litigator and problem solver with a focus on the food and beverage sector. She advises food and beverage clients, including restaurant groups, mid-market food brands, and food manufacturers on a ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- New Law Expands Posting Requirements Regarding Workers’ Compensation Rights | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Entertainment Vendors Must Certify Safety Training for Employees By: Jared W. Slater
- California Employers Prohibited from Mandatory Religious or Political Meetings | By: Jared W. Slater
- California Expands Reach Of Crown Act to Prevent Discrimination Based On Natural and Protective Hairstyles | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- SB 1340 Allows Enforcement Of Local Employment Discrimination Laws | By: Kelly O. Scott
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014