Workplace violence can be categorized into four major groups, namely: crimes by unknown assailants, displaced domestic violence, sexual harassment and malcontent employees (Norman, 2010). A stepwise analysis of the cited categories provides a clear view on the theory of liability accused against an employer. To start with, let us analyze an employer’s liability regarding a malcontent employee. A liability against an employer regarding such an employee is normally assessed on the basis of the measure of what he or she ought to have done to reduce the risk of such an incident occurring. Attorneys try to focus highlighting whether there were signs of such a situation occurring and what control measures were taken to inhibit such explicit behavioral pop up. According to Meadows, it is definitely hard to predict such an issue but an employer is expected to employ some measures to considerably reduce the risk of such things happening (2001).
Crimes by unknown assailants is the other type of violence where employer liability is the most difficult to sustain (Norman, 2010). However, according to law, an employee will be liable if he or she is the owner of the attacked premises, was aware of the danger and failed to act appropriately. Moreover, the employer will be liable if he was aware of possible danger to an injured party. All employers, thus, have to consider safety methods that protect their workers.
Moreover, a spill of domestic violence into a workplace should be of a concern to an employer. Safety of all workers is normally at a risk due to such situation considering the fact that a violent incident can arise .In such a scenario, lawyers normally assess the liability of an employer. This is done through looking into what was done and probably what should have been done.
Lastly, in the case of sexual harassment, attorney usually takes that an employer is liable if his/her senior employees make decisions on sexual favors and if the employee knew anything pertaining sexual harassment and did nothing about it. At this juncture, a lawyer’s claim may focus on negligent hiring, it occurs when an employee is aware of the incompetence of a person but still hires the person (Richard, 2008). Focus will also be drawn to negligent retention which is a situation whereby an employee knows of an employee’s unsuitability but still keeps the employee.
It is, thus, of the essence that attorneys involved in workplace victimization cases must take into consideration all the factors pertaining to the workplace. This factor includes the nature of the workplace offender in question level of security provided to employees etc. They should also understand the depth of the problem through the acquisition of data from various sources. Understanding limitations of each source are also a key factor.