Recent Ruling Reinforces Safety over Procedure
December 2011
California courts made it easier for an employer to comply with its obligation to prevent violence and threats of violence in its workplace. In Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Wilson, the Court of Appeals ruled that hearsay evidence may be considered in an employer’s application for a restraining order and injunction against the husband of a former employee who threatened two current employees. Usually, a witness submitting a sworn declaration or testifying in court must have personal knowledge of the facts to which he or she is testifying, i.e., personally saw or heard the event. Otherwise, such evidence is inadmissible. Here, the trial court granted Kaiser’s request for a restraining order and injunction on the hearsay testimony of two employees. Wilson appealed the trial court ruling, contending the evidence was hearsay and thus inadmissible.
Shortly after Kaiser terminated his wife, Wilson began making threats toward Kaiser employees, including that he was “going to put [them] down,” “going to flip his lid,” and “do something he would regret.” After Wilson threatened to “kill someone”, police detained Wilson. In addition, Wilson’s wife told a therapist that he made threats about shooting a Kaiser employee.
Kaiser included declarations from two employees to support its request for an injunction. Although the declarations asserted each employee had personal knowledge of the events, it was not clear whether either one actually witnessed the events, or learned about them from someone else (in the case of the latter, making them hearsay, and typically inadmissible). At the hearing, Wilson’s lawyer pressed the employees for the basis of their “personal knowledge.” The court asked one witness what she actually saw Wilson do. The employee responded that she did not see Wilson “do it,” but was told by the manager who did. The court asked the second employee, “But [Wilson] hasn’t said anything to you directly or done anything to you directly?” She responded, “No.” The trial judge allowed the statements into evidence but stated that they would be given the hearsay evidence “the weight it deserves, which is not going to be a lot.” The court proceeded to deny Kaiser’s request for injunctive relief.
Kaiser appealed. The Court of Appeal reviewed the public policy and specific language of the statute to determine whether the rules of evidence, which normally preclude hearsay evidence, apply to injunction proceedings. The statute permits a trial court to consider “any testimony that is relevant,” without limitation. The Court of Appeal also noted that injunctive proceedings are expedited to provide quick relief for victims of civil harassment. The statute that applies to employers was enacted to provide employers with comparable protections. Because the statute’s purpose is to prevent violence in the workplace, the expedited nature of the injunction proceedings, and the Legislature’s directive that the trial court shall receive all relevant testimony without limitation, the Court concluded trial courts may consider hearsay testimony when considering an employer’s application for a restraining order and injunction.
An employer is obligated to seek a restraining order and injunction when it is on notice of violence, or credible threats of violence in the workplace. Because this decision made it easier for an employer to obtain such relief on behalf of its employees, employers could have greater exposure for failing to do so. Remember employers must take all incidents and threats of violence seriously, thoroughly document such events, and respond appropriately.
