Unfortunately, workplace violence has become an occurrence of increasing frequency. A violence incident occurring on July 8, 2003, at a manufacturing plant in Mississippi has resulted in a federal court lawsuit that greatly expands the potential liability of numerous parties who may be involved in such incidents, including the employer, employer managers, and other employees; the union representing the plant employees; healthcare institutions; physicians, psychologists, and psy-chiatrists; and security companies.
The scope of this lawsuit is unprecedented and may serve as a specter of future lawsuits in such events. It should also be noted that Mississippi juries have entered significant verdicts recently.
The Incident
Prior to July 8, 2003, the Lockheed Martin Corporation operated a plant in Mississippi to produce aircraft structural subassemblies. The company employed Douglas Williams as an assemblyman. Williams was a member of the union, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, American Federation of Labor – Congress of Industrial Organizations, which represented the hourly employees.
According to the complaint, on many occasions Williams, a Caucasian, made verbal threats toward African-American co-workers. He was attending a mandatory training session at the plant where he continued to engage in his conduct. After the session began, he briefly left the training session to retrieve weapons from his vehicle located at the premises. Returning to the trailer where the training session was ongoing, he entered the trailer with a 12-gauge shotgun and a semi-automatic rifle and fired at employees.
The violent spree continued as Williams entered the plant where he shot and killed several employees and seriously wounded others. A total of 14 employees were shot. All of the victims were African-Americans. Eventually, Williams shot and killed himself.
After the incident occurred, the investigation revealed that Williams had threatened on several occasions to “kill a half-dozen n____” and then kill himself.
Employer Liability
The civil action claims that the employer had been made aware of Williams’ threats and conduct on more than one occasion and that the threats were directed at African-American employees based upon their race and color. It further claims that the employer did not meaningfully intervene to stop the fear and intimidation.
Moreover, while the employer had a written policy of “zero tolerance” towards workplace harassment, the plaintiffs alleged that the employer allowed the plant to be dominated by racial hatred and threats that resulted in a hostile work environment for African-American employees.
In addition to allowing the workplace environment to become racially hostile, the complaint alleged specific failures by the employer, including:
• Failure to provide for safety and security;
• Inadequately trained security personnel and officers;
• Failure to control access to the premises and unlawful entry of firearms;
• Failure to provide a safe place to work;
• Failure to maintain proper records of prior criminal activity;
• Failure to screen employees for prior propensity for violence and criminal activity;
• Failure to timely call law enforcement;
• Failure to plan for site security;
• Failure to include an alarm system and warning system on the premises;
• Failure to train employees, managers, and supervisors in security and procedures to follow when an incident was in progress.
The Union
The complaint is unique because it makes significant allegations of liability against the union. The union’s liability is premised upon its duty to its members (including the victims) under the collective bargaining agreement, including:
• Duty to provide a safe work environment;
• Failure to take action to address the workplace that tolerated and perpetuated by inaction racial hatred toward African-American employees (including racial mimics and co-employees wearing Ku Klux Klan hoods).
Medical Professionals
The complaint also names several categories of “John Doe” defendants, which seeks to extend liability to physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, and counselors, for negligent treatment or counseling of Williams. This joinder of medical professionals is further novel because it infers that these professionals engaged in a form of malpractice that resulted in Williams eventually engaging in violent actions directed toward the plaintiffs. The complaint fails to address how the medical professionals could have controlled Williams’ conduct while in the workplace, other than to put the employer or victim on notice of the threats if they were in fact made to these professionals.
Other John Does
The liability net also extends to other unnamed John Does who are identified as company managers and other employees who had involvement in responding to Williams’ threats and managing the employer’s many related employment policies. As discovery proceeds in the lawsuit, additional individuals will be exposed to liability.
Employment Discrimination Claims
In addition to the claims based upon common law (negligence and intentional tort claims), the civil action is also unique since it includes employment discrimination claims based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In these claims, the plaintiffs are supported by a “determination” from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that the employer allowed a racially hostile environment to exist as to all African-American employees at the plant. The EEOC further determined that this atmosphere culminated in the shooting of 14 individuals.
By adding the employment discrimination claims, the employer faces additional liability for monetary damages, including exemplary or punitive type damages. If successful, the employer also faces liability for the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.
Potential Expanding Liability
This lawsuit, and the tragic underlying incident, set out new boundaries for liabilities that can arise to many groups of defendants from such incidents.
Every employer must take notice of these potential liabilities and develop and enforce workplace violence prevention and anti-harassment policies. This strategy can only succeed with the cooperation and assistance of employees at all levels (including the union leadership in a represented workforce).
Finally, the employer must use all resources at its disposal, including medical, legal, and security to address the various issues that may arise in assessing and responding to potentially violent employees.
December 2004 Render