Case Study 1 - A Threat

A top executive of a major company telephoned the Director of Security and explained that he had just
received a threatening message. The message was constructed from words and letters cut out of a
magazine and glued to a piece of paper. The message indicated that the executive would be killed. Later,
the same executive received a dead cockroach taped to an index card with a straight pin through the
body. The message written on the card was,
. . . This could be you . . . .
The Companys president, Director of Security, and Corporate Counsel immediately conferred and
reviewed the facts regarding the situation and developed a course of action. They concluded that other
law enforcement agencies should be brought into the case. They also decided that special physical
security measures must be taken immediately to protect
the executive.
The Company had a total population of over 21,000 people, which included employees, visitors, and
guests. The executive could not narrow the list of suspects. Over the next several months, the executive
received numerous unsolicited items in the mail at his office and home. The U.S. Postal Inspector was
contacted to assist in the case. The original requests for the unsolicited items were retrieved and
handwriting samples obtained. The investigator compared the sample with thousands of notes and
documents written by employees.
Approximately a year later, several employees expressed concern over receiving harassing unsolicited
items in the mail. The original requests were obtained and it was concluded that they were made by the
same individual. The employees were asked to list the individuals that they believed to be the most likely
suspect. One name appeared on all the lists. The investigator obtained previously prepared handwritten
documents and the handwriting appeared to be that of the same person. The information was turned over
to a special investigative team with another law enforcement agency who brought the individual in for
questioning. The individual denied writing the threatening notes or being responsible for the harassing
mail. Finally, the individual relented and provided the handwriting samples, then returned to his desk at
his office where he then committed suicide. The suicide note explained why the harassing mail and
threatening note were sent. The individual also explained in the suicide note that he had never met the
executive or even knew what he
looked like. Although it cannot be determined if anything could have changed the
outcome of this tragic event, there are many lessons that can be learned that may avert future incidents.
1. The Company was faced with heavy competition and was downsizing. Employees were being asked to
do more with less. Some incidents of workplace violence involve companies that are downsizing or that
have recently done so.
2. The employee was dedicated and hard working, and proud of his work. Employees who commit
workplace violence are not always underachievers.
3. Many times top executives become the target of a disgruntled employee because they are seen as the
company or corporate image.
4. It is important to actively pursue cases of workplace violence.
5. Once the person is identified, immediate action should be taken to assess his or her actions.
6. If an incident does occur, it is important to consider all victims and their families. Use the services of a
priest or clergy. Decide how you are going to inform coworkers.

Case Study 2 - Horseplay or Fighting?

On Monday afternoon, a member of the organizations newly established Incident Response Team was
visited by a supervisor who wanted to discuss a situation in his section. The Friday before he had been
walking to his car after work and noticed a group of
employees congregating under a tree on the premises. They were obviously enjoying a few beers and
were grilling meat on a small charcoal barbecue. They called him over and he accepted one of the offered
beers and took a seat in the shade. About an hour later, two of the workers began to horse around and
show off their boxing skills. One employee misjudged his aim and, instead of merely coming close,
actually made contact and bloodied the other workers nose. The injured worker swore and started
throwing blows as if intending to cause harm. The two were pulled apart and everyone told them to cool
down. The gathering continued and during the banter back and forth the bloodied employee had
commented, Youre lucky they pulled me off, or Id have kicked your butt. Everyone laughed. This
morning at work, the supervisor had heard the workers teasing that employee about being beaten up.
1This seemed to be taken in good humor at first, but one of the men kept laughing about it and telling all
the employees who had missed the fun about what had happened. Over a few hours a number of the
other employees had told him to drop it already, but he seemed unwilling to do so. The supervisor
noticed the butt of the jokes
seeming to get more and more sullen about the ribbing. One of the other employees came up to the
supervisor and warned him that if he didnt do something there might be trouble.
The supervisor talked to the harasser and told him to knock it off, which ended the teasing. The other
employees seemed to appreciate the intervention. The supervisor mentioned the situation while having
lunch with the Human Resources Manager. He was surprised when the Human Resources Manager said
that the Id have kicked your butt comment on the prior Friday was a violation of the company policy
against verbal threats and that he wanted the employee fired under the Zero Tolerance clause of the
workplace violence policy.
The supervisor felt that this was ridiculous and wanted the Incident Response Team to decide what
should be done.
The Incident Response Team met and considered the situation. Some members argued that Zero
Tolerance required firing of both the employees whose horseplay had gone too far. Others argued that
the situation simply had been a brief spate of alcohol-fueled temper that had resolved itself before the
gathering had broken up. There was also a lot of debate over the supervisor allowing the employees to
drink on the premises after work, as well as his own participation in the drinking. The legal advisor to the
team said that any threat, no matter how unlikely to be carried out, should result in firing. Otherwise, the
managers involved might be personally liable if the situation ever developed into violence. The discussion
also involved the conduct of the worker who could not let up teasing on Monday. The team also
considered that the boxing itself possibly violated the companys rule against horseplay. The Industrial
Relations member of the Incident Response Team said that, due to the after-hours nature of the activity,
and the fact that a supervisor had failed
to prevent the horseplay, there would be no way any discipline would go uncontested by the union. After
listening to all views, the organizations senior executive separately called in the two employees from the
Friday incident. They were both surprised that anyone would think that the words spoken could have
been mistaken for anything but good-natured ribbing. Both said that they continued to have a good
relationship and thought the whole matter
overblown. They also agreed that the employee who kept bringing up the incident on Monday was a
loudmouth whom no one took seriously, and that the supervisors verbal correction had been all that was
necessary. It was decided that the entire section would be retrained on the company house rules relating
to remaining after hours on premises, and the alcohol and horseplay prohibitions. The supervisor met with
senior managers who
pointed out how his lack of proper supervision had set the stage for what could have become a major
liability for the company, either through fistfights or vehicle accidents arising from employees being
allowed to drink on premises before driving home. He acknowledged his failures and accepted the written
reprimand without dispute.

The employee who had made the kicked your butt comment was verbally counseled that such
comments, even in jest to friends, could be misconstrued by others and cause concern. The employee
who had taunted his coworker on Monday, was counseled to consider how his words could have been
irritating to everyone he worked with. He apologized and said he would not do it again.
1. Will Zero Tolerance in your organization require firing of all violators of your workplace violence or
safe workplace policy?
2. Are your supervisors properly enforcing work rules in order to prevent situations conducive to potential
violence or other injury?
3. Does your Incident Response Team consist of diverse disciplines and perspectives to allow for all
aspects of situations to be addressed?
4. Does your team have a single leader who can listen to conflicting views of members and make
decisions as to what course of action to take in the absence of consensus?

Case Study 3 - Sexual Assault

A female employee came into the office of the Director of Security and reported that a male coworker had
sexually assaulted her. The Incident Response Team was not activated.
The female employee explained that while the two employees were leaving a work area, the male
coworker turned off the lights, reached both arms around her and grabbed her breasts. The male
coworker was interviewed and denied intentionally touching her breasts. He did admit he might have
brushed against her breast with his elbow. Both employees
indicated that they had been working together for approximately one year. They also both admitted that
they had a close working and personal relationship on and off the job. They indicated that they had lunch
together on a daily basis and had met outside the workplace at a cocktail lounge for drinks. They also
admitted that they had hugged and kissed
each other in the past. There was insufficient evidence to prove sexual assault and the matter was turned
over to the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Sexual
Harassment personnel in the Human Resources Office for further determination.
1. The EEO Manager wanted the case turned over to their office; however, it was important to treat the
incident as a criminal matter. A copy of the investigation was sent to them after the investigation was
completed. It is much more difficult to bring criminal charges of sexual assault/ harassment if the
investigation is not conducted by a trained criminal investigator.
2. Although 50% of marriages start in the workplace, companies should discourage employees from
having a personal relationship at work.

Case Study 4 - Drug and Alcohol Problem

A female employee, who had been sent home for being under the influence, struck her manager on the
side of the head with a board, pulled out a knife, and threatened to cause bodily harm. The Incident
Response Team was not activated. On Friday, a female employee was sent home by her supervisor
because she appeared to be intoxicated. The female employee returned to work on Monday and walked
into the managers office and proclaimed that she was drunk and asked what he was going to do about it.
The female
picked up a board off the managers desk and struck him on the side of his head. She then pulled out her
knife and threatened to cause him bodily harm. The manager was able to escape from his office. As he
ran down the corridor, the female was in close pursuit, waving the knife in the air, and screaming
unintelligible utterances. As the manager passed a
set of double metal doors, he stopped, closed the doors, held them closed with his foot, and called out for
help. While waiting for the police to arrive, the female employee continually jabbed the knife blade
through the crack in the doors in an attempt to cut the manager. The police arrived and arrested the
female employee. During the court hearing and her appeal for wrongful dismissal, the employee admitted
to being addicted to illegal drugs and to being an alcoholic. She claimed that her father had sexually
abused her as a child. The females representative also claimed that the inappropriate behavior by her
supervisor and manager, combined with the illegal drug and alcohol abuse, caused her to flashback to
her childhood, resulting in her violent behavior. The expert witnesses supported this concept and the
judge ordered the company to reinstate the female to her original position. A sexual harassment case was
opened against the manager, who left his position. The case is under appeal. Legal experts say that once
the employee declares that she is an alcoholic
and asks for help, she falls into a protected class under the Americans with Disabilities Act and must be
treated as such.
1. When employees are told they cannot work because it appears that they are under the influence of
alcohol or an illegal substance, the company should not let them drive by themselves. The company
should arrange for a family member or friend to pick them up or have a taxi take them home. If the
employee is involved in an accident after being sent home, there may be significant legal issues raised.
2. Supervisors and managers who believe an employee may become violent should use a conference
room or keep objects that can be used as weapons off their desks or behind them.
3. Behavioral psychologists indicate that many times a persons outward behavior is their way of asking
for help. Supervisors and managers need to understand their role and responsibilities when handling
such cases. Legal experts indicate that an employee must
declare they are an alcoholic or have a condition that falls into one of the protected classes under the
Americans with Disabilities Act prior to the commission of the crime or violation of company policy in order
to be protected under ADA.
4. The Threat Assessment Team should get involved in the early stages, even after an incident has
occurred, to provide the necessary advice.

Case Study 5 - Gun Threat

On Friday afternoon, several employees reported to their supervisor that an employee told them that he
was going to bring in a gun with a silencer and shoot someone.
Immediate action was required. Therefore, the Incident Response Team was not activated.
An employee who had worked for the company for over 25 years became upset with rumors being spread
by coworkers. The employee told a group of coworkers that he was going to bring in a gun with a silencer
and shoot someone. Several coworkers provided statements to that effect. When interviewed by the
Corporate Director of Security, the witnesses denied making any such statements. The employee was
interviewed and freely admitted to making the statements; however the employee indicated that he did
not mean the threats seriously. The employee just wanted the other employees to stop spreading rumors.
Intimidation or the threat of violence violates various laws. In this case, the employee was not charged
criminally; however, the matter was handled administratively.
1. It is important that businesses have a clear policy regarding these types of threats and intimidation.
2. Businesses must consider each case on the material facts and weigh all aggravating and mitigating
factors. When do you terminate an employee with over 25 years of service?
3. What can businesses do to help the employee?

Case Study 6 - Threat from a Termination

The Human Resources Manager received a call from a supervisor who had just completed a firing
meeting. The supervisor said that at the time the employee was notified of the termination, which was
prompted by six no-show, no-call incidents over a five-week period, the employee became visibly angry
and said, You cant fire me! You sure as hell can be terminated, though! The supervisor had told the
employee to calm down and offered that we all say things we dont mean. The employee did appear to
calm down, but stood and said, Youre taking away the only thing I have left. And Ill see you tomorrow
morning at your house and then youll know what its like. The supervisor was very afraid. She asked the
Human Resources Manager what to do. The Human Resources Manager immediately contacted the
company threat management team, which consisted only of herself, the Operations Vice President, and
President. They interviewed the supervisor and a number of other workers. They learned the following:
The supervisor had talked several times with the employee about the attendance situation. The
employee was a 40-year-old former school teacher who at first was apologetic about missing his shifts,
but became increasingly sullen at each subsequent counseling. His hygiene and appearance had begun
to suffer, and it was rumored that he was living in his car. There had also been a few complaints about
him being extremely abrupt with visitors whom he was supposed to serve.
When given a last-chance warning letter, the employee had merely crumpled the paper and left it on the
supervisors desk before walking out and slamming the door.
The supervisor noted that she believed that the employees wife had recently left and taken their three
children to the Mainland. The employee was himself from the Mainland, but no one really knew exactly
where.
He had mentioned to an employee recently that he wondered what the last thing had been on the mind
of someone who had committed suicide by jumping off the Pali.
The supervisor lived about five miles away from the last known residence of the employee. She was
married and had two small children. A year ago she had hosted a party at her home for her employees
and the fired employee had spent much of the evening playing with her children.
The supervisor said that a week earlier there had been a story on the national news about a triple
murder at a workplace on the mainland which had ended with the gunman, a former worker, being shot
and killed by the police. The supervisor said that the fired employee had
commented that this was probably a pretty good way to go and had said, I hope that doesnt hurt too
bad. Another employee, reporting about the same situation, said that the fired coworker had noted that
he could see how somebody could get so fed up with his boss that he would come back with a gun. He
had ended the conversation by saying that he had always wanted a quick death himself, like from a
police sniper.
Another employee reported receiving a call from the fired employee in which he was told to stay home
tomorrow and that he could keep the binoculars loaned to him by the fired employee. In the same call, the
fired employee appeared at times incoherent but did mention that the recent divorce had forced him to
lose his home. He also said that
without his job he would not be able to make his child support payments and he knew his wife would
retaliate by preventing their children from visiting him during their next school break. The call ended with
the fired employee asking his friend to tell his kids that he had always tried his best.
The company called the police and was told by the responding officers that the circumstances did not
yet amount to a crime and at this point there was little that could be done. The police did confirm that the
employee had purchased a shotgun one week earlier.
The Incident Response Team consulted with a Threat Assessment Professional who pointed out that
the employee exhibited a number of extremely serious warning signs and pre-incident indicators:
a) he had suffered a series of recent significant losses (family, job, home);
b) he had exhibited an interest in, and identification with, a recent workplace murderer;
c) he had exhibited an interest in suicide;
d) he had discussed being killed himself;
e) he had indicated deep despair over his current situation;
f) he had given away a personal object, and seemed to be settling his affairs;
g) he had issued a non-conditional statement of intent to harm; and

h) he had made a recent firearm purchase, coinciding with his likely termination. The Threat Assessment
Professional also noted that the employee was familiar with his supervisors home and family.
Based on a number of recommendations, the organization did the following:
The company arranged with the police department to have uniformed special duty officers stationed at
the company premises around the clock for seven days. Extension of the coverage would be considered
as the situation developed.
The company sent the supervisor and her family to stay at a hotel for a week and agreed to pay the
expenses.
The company engaged the services of an investigative firm to conduct surveillance of the supervisors
home by remote video.
The supervisors neighbors were advised that a problem individual might be visiting the supervisors
home. They were given a description of the fired employee and his vehicle and were asked to call the
investigators or the police if he was spotted in the area.
The local police district commander was contacted and it was agreed that for the next two days
increased patrols of the supervisors neighborhood would be attempted as other calls for service allowed.
Attempts were made to contact the fired employees ex-wife to obtain any information she might have
regarding likely locations where the employee could be found.
A psychologist with experience dealing with violence was retained to assist with any further contact from
the former employee or to assist any current employees who might be experiencing anxiety over the
situation. The next morning a neighbor getting his newspaper noticed a strange car pull up and park half
a block away from the supervisors home; the driver was a lone male. The neighbor noted the license
number and upon going indoors confirmed that it was the fired employees vehicle. He called the police
and the investigation company. Arriving police officers saw the man walking up the driveway of the
supervisors home with a golf bag slung over his shoulder and carrying an ax. They ordered him to halt
and, when he brandished the ax at them, they fired a beanbag round, disarming him. They found a
loaded shotgun in the golf bag. He subsequently confessed that he had intended to break down the door
with the ax and murder his supervisor and her family. He was convicted of attempted murder and
weapons charges and was incarcerated.
1. Would your organization have moved as rapidly to assess and manage this kind of situation, or would
the prevailing attitude have been that the employee was simply blowing off steam and the organization
should simply wait and see?
2. Has your organization identified a Threat Assessment Professional who is experienced in assessing
information about troubling situations? What about a psychological/psychiatric resource for advice and
counseling?
3. Would your organization be willing to take measures to assure an employees safety if a work-related
threat extended off-premises?
4. Has your organization identified the resources available through local law enforcement to assist in
situations such as this?
5. What else would your organization do if confronted with this situation?
6. What would your organization do to monitor the situation in the future?

Case Study 7 - Random Vandalism or Retaliation?

The Human Resources Manager for the organization receives a visit from a female employee. Later, as
the employee leaves for lunch, she finds her car, in the office parking lot, damaged by numerous dents on
all four doors. It is evident from clear impressions
of muddy boot soles on parts of the damage areas, that someone had been kicking the car. The woman
had recently been the victim of a serious long-term sexual harassment that had been investigated by the
organization. The result had been the firing, two days earlier, of the senior manager who had coerced the
woman into a sexual relationship. The Human Resources Manager had met that morning with the fired
manager to complete
certain required separation paperwork. The woman employee said that she remembered once hearing
the former manager boasting of damaging the car of someone who had cut him off in traffic, after he had
pulled the elderly driver from the car and slapped him around. The woman employee is afraid that the
former manager is responsible for the damage to her car, and also fears that he will harm her as well. The
woman says that, when she first brought the matter to her present supervisor, she was told that there was
nothing about the situation that the organization could do and that there was no connection to the
workplace. Besides, says her manager, because no articulated threat had been made, she should call a
body shop and not the Incident Response Team. The woman, remembering a briefing given on
Workplace Violence to all employees, did not accept this response and went to the Human Resources
Manager. She says that she thinks she is being retaliated against for providing a truthful statement in the
companys sexual harassment investigation and is primarily concerned for her safety. The Human
Resources Manager speaks with the members of the Incident Response Team. As a result of their
conference, the following occurs:
An experienced investigator is contacted to conduct an investigation of the vandalism.
The police are called and a report is made of possible Criminal Property Damage.
The Human Resources Manager speaks to other employees formerly supervised by the fired manager.
They confirm that he had frequently spoken of angry confrontations he had initiated when subordinates
had frustrated him. Two of the employees reported that he had threatened to teach them a lesson if they
ever crossed him. Both reported that they felt physically threatened by his words and menacing manner.
A background research firm conducts a check of public records in the locations where the former
manager has lived in the past.
The organizations Chief of Security conducts a security briefing for the woman employee. As a
courtesy, a security survey is made of her residence, which is in an apartment complex with excellent
access controls, CCTV cameras and twenty-four hour security guards who monitor the main building
entrance. Grills and gates secure the parking garage.
The woman changes her unlisted telephone number and she is given a new extension number at work.
The organization sends a letter to the former manager informing him that he may no longer visit the
facility. He is told that all contact between himself and the company should be through the Human
Resources Manager.
The womans parking stall is changed to another located closer to the parking garage elevators and
directly under view of the building security cameras.
The building security guards are instructed to escort the woman to and from her parking stall if she
requests.
The woman is referred to the organizations EAP provider for counseling and support. She attends a few
sessions, and appreciates having a sympathetic professional with whom she can confidentially confide
her thoughts and feelings. Upon receiving the letter, the fired manager leaves an angry voice mail
message for the Human Resources Manager. While not containing any overt threat, it does transmit one
piece of welcome news. He says they dont have to worry about him coming back to their lousy building
since hes gotten a much better job on another island. The investigation into the vandalism proves
inconclusive. A passerby recalls walking into the building an hour before the discovery of the damage and
seeing no vandalism. The same man walked out as the woman was showing it to the Human Resources
Manager, and is certain that the car was fine when he arrived. A check of the parking lot tickets and
access computer records shows that only the fired manager exited the parking lot during the relevant time
period. Through records found in California it is discovered that the fired manager was arrested for

beating an ex-lover when she tried to break up with him. He was not convicted of that crime, but in a plea
arrangement he entered a deferred plea to a charge of harassment.
Although the Human Resources Manager does not receive any further communications from the former
manager she does learn from friends on the other island that the former manager is indeed working there.
No background inquiries were made to his former employer by his new employer. The woman employee
reports no further instances of vandalism. The woman expresses frustration with her own managers initial
reaction, but express great appreciation for the subsequent handling by the organization.
1. Do you agree or disagree with the handling of this situation by the organization?
2. Do you think the position of the womans current manager is appropriate for your organization: short of
incontrovertible proof of direct connection, the organization should do nothing to make an employee feel
more secure?
3. What else do you think the organization should have done in this situation?
4. Does your organization conduct thorough background checks of prospective employees?
5. Does your organization:
a) Stress SAFETY with all managers?
b) Promote upward reporting of employee safety and security concerns to the attention of the Threat
Management Team or other responsible executives?

Case Study 8 - Temporary Restraining Order

The supervisor of an outlying office of a mid-sized organization telephones the Threat Management Team
coordinator at the headquarters office. The outlying office is located in a large shopping center. The
supervisor tells the coordinator that a female employee has just told him that at the urging of relatives,
and with misgivings, she has obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent her ex-husband
from approaching within 300 feet of her. She revealed that he had frequently choked and beat her during
their seven-year marriage. He is an ex-felon, presently on parole for an armed robbery. She has recently
left her ex-husband for the first time and is living with a cousin whose address her ex-husband does not
know. He is, of course, familiar with her regular work site. The employee had delivered the TRO to the
local police station earlier that morning. She also said that the ex-husband used to have access to a
number of guns owned by his friends. He had warned her on numerous occasions that if she ever told
anyone about his violence he would find her and kill her. For that reason she is afraid that by starting the
TRO process she will cause him to become enraged and carry out his threats. The police told the woman
that they would try to serve the TRO on her ex-husband as soon as possible. The Incident Response
Team coordinator, who is the companys Human Resources Manager, calls an immediate meeting of the
team. While waiting for the team to assemble, the coordinator places a call to the outside threat
assessment consultant on contract with the company.
The consultant advises that the following steps should be immediately taken at the site:
The woman should be asked for a copy of the TRO and any other court orders detailing the locations
and person(s) from whom the ex-husband was ordered to stay away.
The woman should be asked to supply a full description of the exhusband, a recent photograph (if
available), and a description of all vehicles he is known to use.
The information obtained from the woman should be supplied to the security guards for the shopping
center where the womans office is located.
The woman should be consulted with and directed to make herself available to her ex-husband as little
as possible and to have no communication of any kind with him.
The team should develop a plan for what callers or visitors will be told about the womans presence or
absence from her work site. The threat assessment consultant agrees to remain available by telephone to
the company. The Incident Response Team meets and, in addition to the consultants advice, decides on
the following:
The site manager is to be told to keep the main entry-door to the office locked. As the office where the
woman works rarely has visitors who do not make advance appointments, the supervisor does not think
this will be a problem. Because the door contains a narrow glass window, visitors with appointments can
be seen and admitted.
The office receptionist is to be told to call the police and the shopping center security force upon any
appearance made by the ex-husband at or near the office. Callers are to be told that the woman is on
vacation and that messages are being taken.
The woman is to be offered an opportunity to work at another office site on the other side of the island.
Her ex-husband is not familiar with this location.
The other five employees of the office are to be briefed on the situation and are to take specific
measures to safeguard information about their coworker and her transfer.
Contact will be made with the police in order for the company or the woman to be notified once the exhusband has been served with the TRO. The same day, the woman moved to another office of the
company, located approximately 25 miles from her normal office. The office staff at that location was also
briefed on the situation and given the information
about the ex-husbands vehicles and description. A copy of the TRO was given to the second office
manager. It specified that the ex-husband was to remain a distance of 100 yards away from the woman
and her workplace (her regular work site address was listed).
At 7:30 the next morning, the Incident Response Team coordinator listened to voice mail left by the police
the previous night advising that the ex-husband had been served the TRO. His demeanor had been
angry.
At 8:00 a.m., the coordinator received a call from the manager of the first office. Arriving employees had
spotted the ex-husband sitting in his car 50 yards from the entry to the office. They had called the police

and shopping center security. When the police arrived, they spoke to the exhusband and noticed the butt
of a pistol protruding from under some papers on the front passenger seat. The ex-husband was arrested
for violating the TRO and a loaded revolver was recovered from the vehicle, hidden beneath a copy of the
TRO. The pistol was determined to have been stolen. He was also charged on the weapons-related
offenses. At a subsequent court hearing, a high bail was set. Later, the ex-husbands parole was revoked
and he was convicted on a felony gun charge.
1. What other steps might the Incident Response Team have taken to ensure the safety of the woman
employee?
2. As is often the case, the TRO was of mixed value. In your opinion, was it the likely precipitator of the
ex-husbands pre-attack behavior?
3. What alternatives to a TRO could have been used to facilitate the woman employees safety?

Case Study 9 - Behavioral Problem

A supervisor calls the Corporate Director of Safety/Security over the concern of an employee. The
supervisor indicates that the employee had asked if their neighbors had called. When asked why, the
employee had related a story about his neighbors who
have a machine that can read his mind. The employee had told the supervisor that this matter needs to
be reported because only the FBI is authorized to have such a machine.
The Assistant General Manager, Department Head, Corporate Director of Safety/Security, Corporate
Counsel, and Director of Human Resources reviewed the facts regarding the situation and developed a
course of action. The Incident Response Team concluded that the employee should be sent to his
personal physician and should return with a letter from his physician stating that the employee . . . is not
a threat to themselves or someone else . . . . Several months later, the employee returned to work with a
letter from the doctor. The letter stated that it was the doctors opinion that returning to work would be
good therapy for the employee. The company did not have an Employee Assistance Program (EAP),
which made it difficult to handle. While interviewing the employee, it was found that the employee had
thrown rocks at the neighbors house causing damage to the windows and roof. The employee explained
that this was an attempt to stop them from using the mind reading machine. The employee seemed
confused. He indicated that he was seeing a state chiropractor, who suggested that he move because of
the neighbors, which he did. The employee did return to work under close supervision and is doing well.
1. Employees should be treated with respect at all times.
2. When dealing with this type of situation, the individual can be unpredictable. It is important that trained
staff handle such matters and consult with an expert in human behavior and risk assessment.
3. It is also very important to consider not only violations of company policy but also violations of criminal
laws. Not taking appropriate action to correct behavioral problems is actually giving permission to
continue with the actions.
4. It is very important to identify who is on the Incident Response Team and to activate the Incident
Response Team as soon as a potential threat is identified.

Case Study 10 - Stalking

A supervisor called the Human Resources Manager to request a meeting of the Incident Response Team
for assistance in handling a situation hes just learned about. He had been counseling one of his
employees about her frequent unscheduled absences, when she told him a chilling story of what shes
been going through for the past year. She had broken up with her boyfriend a year ago and hes been
stalking her ever since. He calls her several times a week and she hangs up immediately. He shows up
wherever she goes on the weekends and just stares at her from a distance. He often parks his car down
the block from her home and just sits there. Hes made it known he has a gun. This organizations plan
calls for the initial involvement of the Security Director, Human Resources Manager, and Employee
Assistance Program in cases involving stalking. The security officer, EAP counselor, and the Human
Resources Manager met first with the supervisor and then with
the employee and supervisor together. At the meeting with the employee, after learning as much of the
background as possible, they gave her some initial suggestions.
1. Contact the local police and file reports. Ask them to assess her security at home and make
recommendations for improvements.
2. Log all future contacts with the stalker and clearly record the date, time, and the nature of the contact.
3. Let voice mail screen incoming phone calls.
4. Contact her phone company to report the situation.
5. Give permission to let her coworkers know what was going on (she would not agree to do this).
6. Vary her routines, e.g., go to different shops, take different routes, run errands at different times, report
to work on a variable schedule.
The team then worked out the following plan:
1. The Human Resources Manager acted as coordinator of the response effort. He made a written report
of the situation and kept it updated. He kept the team members, the supervisor, and the employee
apprised of what the others were doing to resolve the situation. He also looked into the feasibility of
relocating the employee to another work site.
2. The Security Director immediately reported the situation to the local police. With the employees
consent, she also called the police where the employee lived to learn what steps they could take to help
the employee. She offered to coordinate and exchange
information with them. The Security Director arranged for increased surveillance of the building and
circulated photos of the stalker to all building guards with instructions to detain him if he showed up at the
building.
3. The supervisor began to check the employees voice mail in order to eliminate the number of times she
would have to be exposed to the stalkers verbal harassment. He forwarded any non-harassing voice mail
to a new voice mailbox established for the employee. The Security Director brought a tape recorder to the
supervisor and showed him the best way to tape any future voice mail messages from the stalker. She
also contacted the organizations phone company to arrange for its involvement in the case.
4. The Employee Assistance Program counselor provided support and counseling for both the employee
and the supervisor throughout the time this was going on. He suggested local organizations that could
help the employee. He also tried to convince her to tell coworkers about the situation.
5. The union arranged to sponsor a session on stalking in order to raise the consciousness of
organization employees about the problem in general. After a week, when the employee finally agreed to
tell coworkers what was going on, the EAP counselor and Security Director jointly held a meeting with the
whole work group to discuss any fears or concerns they had and give advice on how they could help with
the situation.
In this case, the employees coworkers were supportive and wanted to help out. They volunteered to
watch out for the stalker and to follow other security measures recommended by the Security Director.
The stalker ended up in jail because he tried to break into the employees home while armed with a gun.
The Security Director believes that the local police were able to be more responsive in this situation
because they had been working together with security on the case.
1. Do you agree with the employers approach in this case?

2. What would you do in a similar situation if your organization doesnt have security guards or a Security
Director?
3. What would you do if coworkers were too afraid of the stalker to work in the same office with the
employee?
4. What would you do if/when the stalker gets out of jail on bail or out on probation?
5. If the stalker had not precipitated his arrest, how long would your organization have been willing to
continue supporting the employee with enhanced procedures?
6. Would your union and management have agreed to conduct stalking training for employees?

Case Study 11 - Frightening Behavior

A supervisor contacts the Human Resources Office because one of his employees is making the other
employees in the office uncomfortable. He said the employee does not seem to have engaged in any
actionable misconduct but, because of the employers new
workplace violence policy, and the workplace violence training he had just received, he thought he should
at least mention what was going on. The employee was recently divorced and had been going through a
difficult time for over two years and had made it clear that he was having financial problems which were
causing him to be stressed out. He was irritable and aggressive in his speech much of the time. He would
routinely talk about the number of guns he owned, not in the same sentence, but in the same general
conversation in which he would mention that someone else was causing all of his problems. At the first
meeting with the supervisor, the Human Resources Supervisor and Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
counselor suggested that, since this was a long-running situation rather than an immediate crisis, the
supervisor would have time to do some fact-finding. They gave him
several suggestions on how to do this while safeguarding the privacy of the employee (for example,
request a confidential conversation with previous supervisors, go back for more information from
coworkers who had registered complaints, and, if he was not already familiar with the employees
personnel records, pull his file to see if there are any previous
adverse actions in it). Two days later they had another meeting to discuss the case and strategize a plan
of action. The supervisors initial fact-finding showed that the employees coworkers attributed his
aggressive behavior to the difficult divorce situation he had been going through, but they were
nevertheless afraid of him. The supervisor did not learn any more specifics about why they were afraid,
except that he was short-tempered, ill-mannered, and spoke a lot about his guns (although, according to
the coworkers, in a matter-of-fact rather than in an intimidating manner). After getting ideas from the
Human Resources Supervisor and the EAP counselor, the supervisor sat down with the employee and
discussed his behavior. He told the employee it was making everyone uncomfortable and that it must
stop. He referred the employee to the EAP, setting a time and date to meet with the counselor.
As a result of counseling by the supervisor and by the Employee Assistance Program counselor, the
employee changed his behavior. He was unaware that his behavior had been scaring people. He learned
new ways from the EAP to deal with people. He accepted the EAP referral to a therapist in the community
to address underlying personal problems.
Continued monitoring by the supervisor showed the employees conduct improving to an acceptable level
and remaining that way.
1. Do you agree with the approach in this case?
2. Can you think of other situations that would lend themselves to this kind of low-key approach?
3. Does your organization have effective EAP training so that supervisors are comfortable in turning to the
EAP for advice?

Case Study 12 - Disruptive Behavior

After workplace violence training was conducted at the organization, during which early intervention was
emphasized, an employee called the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) member of the workplace
violence team for advice on dealing with his senior coworker. He said the coworker, who had been hired
at a senior professional level six months earlier, was in the habit of shouting and making demeaning
remarks to the other employees in the office. The senior coworker was skilled in twisting words around
and manipulating situations to his advantage. For example, when employees would ask him for advice on
a topic in his area of expertise, he would tell them to use their own common sense. Then when they
finished the assignment, he would make demeaning remarks about them and speak loudly about how
they had done their work the wrong way. At other times, he would
demand rudely in a loud voice that they drop whatever they were working on and help him with his
project. The employee said he had attempted to speak with his supervisor about the situation, but was
told not to make a mountain out of a molehill. The EAP Counselor met with the employee who had
reported the situation. The employee described feelings of being overwhelmed and helpless. The
demeaning remarks were becoming intolerable. The employee believed that attempts to resolve the issue
with the coworker were futile. The fact that the supervisor minimized the situation further discouraged the
employee. By the end of the meeting with the counselor, however, the employee was able to recognize
that not saying anything was not helping and was actually allowing a bad situation to get worse. At a
subsequent meeting, the EAP counselor and the employee explored skills to address the situation in a
respectful, reasonable, and responsible manner with both his supervisor and the abusive coworker. The
counselor suggested using language such as:
I dont like shouting. Please lower your voice.
I dont like it when you put me down in front of my peers.
Its demeaning when I am told that I am...
I dont like it when you point your finger at me.
I want to have a good working relationship with you.
The employee learned to focus on his personal professionalism and responsibility to establish and
maintain reasonable boundaries and limits by using these types of firm and friendly I-statements,
acknowledging that he heard and understood what the supervisor and coworker were saying, and
repeating what he needed to communicate to them.
After practicing with the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor, the employee was able to
discuss the situation again with his supervisor. He described the situation in non-blaming terms, and he
expressed his intentions to work at improving the situation. The supervisor acknowledged that the
shouting was annoying, but again asked the employee not to make a mountain out of a molehill. The
employee took a deep breath and said, It may be a molehill, but nevertheless it is affecting my ability to
get my work done efficiently. Finally, the supervisor stated that he did not realize how disruptive the
situation had become and agreed to monitor the situation. The next time the coworker raised his voice,
the employee used his newly acquired assertiveness skills and stated in a calm and quiet voice, I dont
like to be shouted at. Please lower your voice. When the coworker started shouting again, the employee
restated in a calm voice, I dont like being shouted at. Please lower your voice. The coworker stormed
away. Meanwhile, the supervisor began monitoring the situation. He noted that the abusive coworkers
conduct had improved with the newly assertive employee, but continued to be rude and demeaning
toward the other employees. The supervisor consulted with the EAP counselor and Human Resources
Supervisor. The counselor told him, generally, people dont change unless they have a reason to change.
The counselor added that the reasons people change can range from simple I-statements, such as
those suggested above, to disciplinary actions. The Human Resources Supervisor discussed possible
disciplinary options with the supervisor. The supervisor then met with the abusive coworker who blamed
the altercations on the others in the office. The supervisor responded, I understand the others were
stressed. Im glad you understand that shouting, speaking in a demeaning manner, and rudely ordering
people around is unprofessional and disrespectful. It is unacceptable behavior and will not be tolerated.
During the meeting, he also referred the employee to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The
coworker continued his rude and demeaning behavior to the other employees in spite of the supervisors

efforts. The others, after observing the newly acquired confidence and calm of the employee who first
raised the issue, requested similar training from the EAP. The supervisor met again with the EAP
counselor and Human Resources Supervisor to strategize next steps.
When all of the employees in the office started using assertive statements, the abusive coworker became
more cooperative. However, it took a written reprimand, a short suspension, and several counseling
sessions with the EAP counselor before he ceased his shouting and rude behavior altogether.
1. Does your workplace violence training include communication skills to put a stop to disruptive behavior
early on (including skills for convincing reluctant supervisors to act)?
2. How would your organization have proceeded with the case if the coworker had threatened the
employee who spoke to him in an assertive way?
3. What recourse would the employee have had if the supervisor had refused to intervene?

Case Study 13 - Psychological Problem

A Division administrator contacted Human Resources because of a female employee who was displaying
memory lapses, sudden physical disability, disorientation, agitation, inability to focus and retain
information, sudden arrival at coworkers residences in a troubled state, threats to harm herself, and
possession of a knife and a handgun while off-duty at the homes and in the presence of a coworker. The
employee had been an unexpected overnight guest when she appeared at colleagues homes in a
troubled state. She has been disoriented to her surroundings, and unable to identify those with whom she
regularly works. Colleagues have transported her to hospital emergency rooms, and to scheduled
medical and mental health treatments. Coworkers are distressed about the potential threat posed to them
by the employee. The Human Resources Division contacted the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for
initial consultation. The EAP recommended bringing in
a psychologist with threat assessment expertise to meet and help devise a response plan. The initial
meeting consisted of several representatives of Human Resources, the Division administrator, the EAP
and the threat assessment psychologist. At this meeting, the background of the case and the employee
was discussed. The employer revealed that the goal of the intervention was to devise a strategy which
would enable the safe retention of
the employee. The Division administrator was tasked with providing the personnel file to
the psychologist for review. He would also arrange for the employee to be evaluated by the psychologist
for purposes of providing a plan of action based upon a mental health, or Fitness for Duty evaluation. He
arranged for coworkers to have access to the EAP program in order to address their fears and
consequent mental health needs. The Human Resources administrator contacted security in order to
develop background information related to the employee. Information about the employees criminal
history of violence and weapons possession was desired. The Human Resources administrator also
consulted with the Division administrator to make sure that the organizations policies and procedures
were implemented. The Human Resources office articulated questions that they wanted answered by the
Fitness for Duty evaluation.
Timed to coincide with when the Fitness for Duty evaluation was being conducted, the EAP had a crisis
debriefing session with all employees. The purpose of this debriefing was to address ongoing concerns of
the employees, provide information that may lead to their reassurance that the organization was acting
responsibly, and to provide linkage to individual counseling. The EAP also conducted individual shortterm counseling and referrals for employees who expressed a need for these services. In a manner
ensuring confidentiality, the EAP provided information to the threat assessment psychologist about
behaviors of concern to these employees. The psychologist interviewed selected administrative staff and
learned the employers goal was the safe retention of the employee. Information was developed that the
employee had no criminal history. Initial information
was that the employee had recently been evaluated for a stroke, but that the physical complaints of this
employee had no known medical causation. A referral had then been made for psychological care. The
threat assessment psychologist met with the employee and gained access to her mental health files. It
was learned that she became depressed
and anxious, and started to have flashbacks and disconnected memories of her childhood. She had
trance-like dissociative states. She was suspected of being a victim of sexual abuse as a child, as well as
some other violence. Her psychiatrist prescribed a number of medications commonly used in treating
depressive, panic, seizure and psychotic
disorders. Psychological testing was conducted, with results indicating the employee was not in touch
with her emotions, that may overcontrol the way that she expressed her anger. Her profile indicated that
she tended to be impulsive and act out in socially unacceptable ways. She showed a pattern of guilt and
remorse and negative self-evaluation after her impulsive behavior, but she tended to repeat this behavior.
People with her profile tend to feel tense, agitated and unable to manage their problems. They engage in
compulsive behavior and set high standards for themselves and feel guilty when such standards are not
met. The test results showed that she had superior intellectual functioning. While she has admitted to
recent suicidal ideation, her test results did not suggest a tendency to express anger outwardly. Her
pattern of test results suggests that she may have symptoms of a number of psychological conditions.

The psychologist interviewed the employee. She admitted hearing voices. She described these voices as
coming from within her head and that the identity of the voice was known to be her. At times, the voices
argue. She showed no evidence of obvious delusional beliefs. At times, her memory and concentration
appeared lacking for someone of her intellectual
capacity. She said that she did not understand why her employer was involved in her situation. She
expressed apprehension that she may lose her job.
The employee expressed distress over her recent behavioral changes. She claimed that she finds herself
at different locations without remembering the circumstances of her travel. The employee denied any
homicidal ideation, thoughts, intent or plans. She admitted to suicidal ideation in the past, the last time 2-3
months ago. Her plan had involved shooting herself and at least on one occasion, she had placed a gun
to her head. She had thoughts about driving her car over a cliff, but she did not pursue this because the
outcome was not
guaranteed. She told the psychologist that a few months ago that she had attempted to acquire a
handgun for target practice because she could not bring an unregistered weapon which she
possessed to the range. She was unable to acquire one because she truthfully answered registration
questions pertaining to her mental condition. She had, and may continue to have, access to two other
weapons. She claimed that her husbands
unregistered handgun was dismantled. She said that a second unregistered weapon had been in a safe
deposit box, but that she then anonymously had mailed it to the police. When the psychologist expressed
skepticism that she had mailed this weapon to the police, she then denied mailing it and claimed that she
had thrown the gun into the ocean after contemplating killing herself. The employee revealed that she is
an experienced shooter of weapons, having been trained to shoot by her father when she was aged four
or five. She said that she knows that she can always go to a shooting range to use a weapon there. The
employee disclosed that she had increased her level of alcohol consumption over the past six months.
She admitted that she had consumed one and a half beers before coming into the psychological interview
in an attempt to manage her anxieties. While she denied any history of problems with alcohol or craving
to drink, she revealed that a friend of hers had told her that her drinking was making matters worse. She
denied any current abuse of illegal substances, but admitted smoking marijuana and using Ecstasy on
several occasions while in college.
An interview with the employees supervisor indicated that over the past few weeks, she had been doing
well in her work. He felt that she was getting better. He was able to tolerate her occasionally taking sick
leave because of episodes that she may experience. He considered her one of the best employees he
ever had. The psychologist completed his evaluation and wrote a detailed report on his findings The
Fitness for Duty documented the severity and variety of her psychological conditions, that the conditions
would become noticeable on a periodic basis, and that this would prevent her from working during that
time period. During acute episodes of her disorder, she was viewed as being unable to perform some or
all of her work functions, duties and responsibilities. During the period of time that her condition flared,
she was considered to be a mild-substantial danger to hurt herself. The level of risk varied as a function
of her fluctuating psychological course. Also elevating the risk level was the potential presence of
handguns, the location and security of which were not adequately documented. While the employee
denied any thoughts, intent or plan to hurt others, the presence of weapons was perceived to elevate the
risk that others could be inadvertently hurt in any attempt to hurt herself. Additionally, others who might
seek to disarm her could be injured in this process. The report concluded that if the employer wanted to
keep the employee working under these conditions, that coworkers should not transport her for medical
care, but should call an ambulance and security if such care was needed. It was also recommended that
the employee be directed to have her weapons secured by police authorities. The Employee Assistance
Program was suggested as a resource that could be tasked with making recommendations regarding the
employee gaining access to specialized treatment programs on the mainland, which programs could be
helpful to the employee. The employer was advised that a comprehensive risk management approach
would also involve retaining a security firm that could develop additional information about the behavior,
thinking and plans of the employee. The security firm could engage in surveillance or pretext contacts in
order to aid in managing the case. The employer was informed that this approach could serve as an early
warning system if the employee were engaged in active measures to plan an act of violence. Despite this
recommendation, the employer decided against these measures.

The employer decided to retain the employee and to continue to provide accommodation. The employer
provided time off for psychological care and discontinued the practice of employees providing
transportation to psychological and medical care. The employee has been performing her duties well.
Another employee decided to quit because she was so
traumatized about being exposed to the behavior of her coworker.
1. Do you agree with the employers willingness to retain the employee?
2. Would your organization handle the situation differently? How?
3. Has your organization identified a threat assessment professional if a similar situation occurred in your
organization?

Case Study 14 - Harassing Behavior

A Division administrator contacted Human Resources because of a male employee who, for a period of
four years, had engaged in harassing behavior that included threatening hand gestures, facial sneers,
hitting another employee with a refrigerator door, being confrontational and intimidating others. In
addition, the one employee had made racially derogatory remarks and was badgering and
confrontational. The employee had a history of complaining about alleged mistreatment at his workplace.
Eight formal internal complaints were documented about the behavior of four coworkers. In formal and
informal complaints, he had claimed sexual harassment, reprisals, retaliation, hostile behavior, and racial
harassment. He claimed there was a conspiracy against him. He said that he had received prank calls
from a coworker. In about a four-month period, he had filed five complaints alleging coworkers had
engaged in racial discrimination and lying. No complaints were sustained. Over a four-year span, few of
his complaints resulted in coworkers being counseled about their behavior. Most of his complaints were
not sustained. His supervisor and coworkers started to complain about his behavior. He asked if he could
get directives in writing. He was observed making extensive use of the telephone for personal calls. He
yelled at a coworker. His continuous talking was interfering with other coworkers productivity. He was
tardy to work. His supervisor complained about the employee causing her stress. He was noted as
moody, making threatening gestures (punching his fist into the palm of his hand), and recording his
conversations with everyone by means of a tape recorder. He was asked to calm down as his voice
escalated and got very loud. He was unwilling to work required overtime. He asked a supervisor if he
could bring a gun to work in order to protect himself. When he was told no, he asked if he could bring
pepper spray to work. A coworker claimed that the employee confided that he carried a knife in his socks.
The employee was placed on leave with pay in order to conduct an investigation of his work environment.
Three years later, the company sought to take action to resolve this situation.
The Human Resources Division contacted a psychologist with threat assessment expertise to meet and
help devise a response plan. The initial meeting consisted of a representative of the Human Resources
office and the threat assessment psychologist. At this meeting, the background of the case and the
employee was discussed. The employer revealed that the goal of the intervention was to devise a
strategy which would enable the safe return to work of the employee. The Human Resources
administrator was tasked with providing the
personnel file and other documents (including the complaint file) to the psychologist for review. He would
also arrange for the employee to be evaluated by the psychologist for purposes of providing a plan of
action based upon a mental health, or Fitness for Duty evaluation. The psychologist interviewed selected
administrative staff and learned that
the employers goal was the safe return to work of the employee. The psychologist was provided
information that the employer had sent the employee to a psychiatrist at the time he was removed from
work status. The psychiatrist conducted one interview and performed no testing. The psychiatrists report
indicated that coworkers had anxiety about the
employees potential for dangerousness. Psychological testing results indicated the employee may have
tried to present a distorted and overly positive impression of himself, thereby limiting confidence in the
psychological test results. His psychological test
results showed that he desires to dominate in relationships and that he may have occasional exaggerated
aggressive responses. He has strong need for attention and affection from others and he may fear that
these needs will not be met if he is more honest and open about his attitudes. People with his profile are
perfectionists and condemnation causes them considerable tension, especially if conveyed by persons in
authority. There
was no evidence that the employee suffered from disorders such as psychosis, depression, or anxiety
disorders. He operated at a normal level of intellectual functioning. There was evidence that he may have
various personality disorders. The psychologist interviewed the employee, who was tense and cautious.
He had an unusual affect, a prominent and intermittent facial grimace. He was articulate, deliberate and
overtly cooperative. He denied any homicidal or suicidal ideation, thoughts, intent or plans. He claimed
that he owned no weapons. He denied any intent to bring a firearm to work, claiming that he only wanted

permission to carry a pepper spray gun. The reason for this was his purported fear of a coworker. He
denied telling this same coworker that he carried a knife on his person, or that he ever does carry a knife.
The employee showed no evidence of hallucinatory behavior or obvious delusional beliefs. He said that
he had no problems with alcohol, and previously used it very rarely. He denied any current substance
abuse, but admitted smoking marijuana while in high school. He does not take any medication. The
employee was asked if he would be willing to disavow any rights to gun ownership in order to return to
work. Initially he responded by saying that he would have to consult with his union in order to not give up
any rights. When told that some people are willing to disclaim such ownership rights in order to regain
their position, he instructed this evaluator to write that he would do so. The psychologist completed his
evaluation and wrote a detailed report on his findings. The Fitness for Duty report documented that the
employee currently showed evidence that he represents a low risk of present danger to himself or others.
There was no recent or past specific threat. There was
no known substance abuse or psychotic disorder. There was no known history of violence, other than a
reported incident when he hit a coworker with a refrigerator door. However, the request to bring a gun to
work and allegations that he wore a knife on his person were concerns. It was suggested that if the
employee was allowed to return to the workplace,
it would be prudent to accept his offer to disavow any gun ownership rights by having him submit a
statement to this effect to authorities. The psychologist stated that because of the employees personality
disorder, he was likely to continue to have problems dealing tactfully with people. Training classes in
anger management, stress management, and conflict resolution were suggested. However, the employer
was warned that supervisory tactics would need to be employed to observe his work behavior and
document whether or not he meets all requirements, including interpersonal comportment. The threat
assessment psychologist suggested to the employer that the services of a security firm be retained in
order to develop more information on the criminal background and weapons ownership profile of the
employee. The employer was advised that a comprehensive risk management
approach would also involve the security firm engaging in surveillance or pretext contacts in order to aid
in managing the case. The employer was informed that this approach could serve as an early warning
system if the employee was engaged in active measures to plan an act of violence. Despite these
recommendations, the employer decided against these measures.
The employer decided to retain the employee. The employer required the employee to attend extensive
anger management training. The employee complained about this requirement and continues to be
uncooperative with the employer.
1. Do you agree with the employers willingness to retain the employee?
2. Would your organization handle the situation differently? How?
3. Has your organization identified a threat assessment professional if a similar situation occurred in your
organization?