Everett F. Meiners, Partner, Parker, Milliken, Clark, O’Hara & Samuelian, Los Angeles. Contributing author to Advising California Employers published by CEB.

In 1994, the California legislature enacted a law allowing an employer to obtain an injunction against an employee who threatens others in the workplace. Previously, a threatened individual was personally able to obtain an injunction under CCP §527.6. However, the employer did not have any similar right in the event that the threatened employee was not interested in personally filing a lawsuit.

USS-Posco Industries Case
The recent case of USS-Posco Industries v Edwards (Aug, 2003, No. A099484) not only reaffirmed the right of an employer to obtain such an injunction, it also confirmed the fact that such an injunction could be obtained even if the employee only made generalized threats and did not specifically name the supervisor who felt threatened.

Facts
In USS-Posco Industries the defendant (Edwards) was an employee who had made several threatening statements towards his supervisors and other employees. The ultimate termination of Edwards arose out of the fact that he had refused to wear his safety glasses. A low ranking supervisor asked Edwards to wear his safety glasses and Edwards had ignored the request. Thus, the Department Manager was advised of Edwards’ refusal and told Edwards that if he did not wear his glasses that he would be suspended for five days. Later, Edwards made several statements to his supervisors that they understood to be invitations to join him in the parking lot after work to fight. When the Department Manager learned of the threats, she contacted Edwards’ union representative for a meeting. Although Edwards said that he had “only been joking,” the Department Supervisor suspended Edwards for five days.

A further investigation discovered that Edwards had told other employees that he kept a gun in his car and that if the employee ever saw him coming in with a lunch box, which he said he never used, there would be a gun inside the lunch box and the employee should get out of the way because “he would let them fly.”Edwards was alleged to have made other more colorful threats that are set forth in the opinion. Although none of the threats contained any direct reference to the Department Supervisor, she was “shocked and concerned” about her own safety and the safety of co-workers.

Injunction Requested
As a result, the company requested a protective order under CCP §527.8 requiring Edwards to stay away from the Department Supervisor, company employees and company premises. The Superior Court granted the injunction. Edwards appealed the issuance of the injunction, on several grounds, one being that there had been no threat against any specific individual and therefore the company could not obtain an injunction under CCP §527.8. .

Generalized Threats are Sufficient for Injunction
The Court of Appeal concluded that it was not necessary that there be a threat against a specifically named individual, if there was credible evidence of the fact that the employee had made generalized threats of violence. The court stated that, “An employer may seek relief under CCP §527 on behalf of any employee who is credibly threatened with unlawful violence, whether or not that employee is identified by the defendant.”

Conclusion
This case is a reminder that employers should consider the use of injunctive relief in the event that they have an employee who has made either generalized threats of violence, or specific threats against employees or supervisors. Both CCP §527.8 and the USS-Postal Industries case authorize the Superior Court to issue an injunction requiring the employee to stay away from the work site and the company’s supervisors and employees.