State and Local Health and Safety Laws

Many states and municipalities have laws that mandate a certain level of safety in the workplace. These laws vary greatly in what they require, how they are enforced, and even which employers they cover.

Early on, California began enforcing the most powerful of these laws: It requires every employer in the state to have a written plan to prevent workplace injuries. A number of states have followed the lead, putting teeth and nails into the laws that protect workplace safety. For example, Texas maintains a 24-hour hotline for telephone reports of violations—and prohibits employers from discriminating against workers who drop a dime to use it.

1. State OSHA Laws

Most states now have their own OSHA laws—most with protections for workers that are similar to those provided in the federal law. For example, employers in some low-hazard industries, such as retailers and insurance companies with fewer than ten employees, are exempt from some posting and reporting requirements. Most state laws cover all small employers, regardless of the type of business.

A number of states that do not now have OSHA laws in place are presently considering passing them—and many of the states that already have such laws are considering wholesale amendments changing their coverage and content. Check your state’s particulars with a local OSHA office—or call the state department of labor to check whether your state has enacted an OSHA law recently.

A number of state laws specifically forbid employers from firing employees who assert their rights under workplace health and safety rules. Some states, like OSHA, give workers the right to refuse to work under certain conditions, although the workers may need to report the condition first. And some states protect workers from retaliation not only for exercising their rights under OSHA, but also for using state “right to know” laws—statutes that require employers to give workers information about hazardous substances on the job.

Still another group of state laws extends beyond the workplace to protect employees who report violations of laws and rules that create specific dangers to public health and safety. These laws, commonly referred to as whistleblower statutes, generally protect good eggs—individuals who are attempting to uphold a public policy of the state. For example, typical whistleblower statutes prohibit employees from being fired for reporting toxic dumping or fraudulent use of government funds.

The Knock That Never Comes

If you happen upon an OSHA official who is feeling chatty and loose-tongued, you may hear what we all suspected: There simply are not enough inspectors to go around inspecting. Perhaps the jobs are hard to fill—OSHA inspectors nestle among IRS auditors on most employers’ lists of unwelcome visitors.

Restricted budgets may be a problem, too—the agency has been forced to set staff levels low and keep them there.

All this makes for lax enforcement. For example, there are only about 250 inspectors on the California OSHA staff available to monitor businesses and dole out citations for failing to comply with the state’s comprehensive law requiring health and safety plans for every employer in the state.

And California is a big state. Chamber of Commerce officials there recently estimated that if all the inspectors started at the state’s Oregon border and worked their way south through every business, it would take at least 300 years to reach Mexico.

2. Sanitation Laws

Many state and local health and building codes offer guidance in how to keep your workplace safe. While not intended specifically to ensure workplace safety, these laws often include programs designed to ensure good sanitation and public safety in general.

For example, the health department of the city in which you work probably has the power to order an employer to improve restroom facilities that are leaking and causing unsanitary workplace conditions. And your local building inspector typically can order an employer to straighten out faulty electrical wiring that presents a shock or fire hazard to people working near that wiring.

When the Boss Doubles as a Bathroom Monitor

It wasn’t big news to many when government health authorities recently slapped a $332,500 fine on Hudson Foods, a poultry processing plant in the town of Noel, Missouri. The plant had been inspected by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 23 times in 24 years—a healthy number for an agency notoriously backlogged and selective in carrying out its charge of ferreting out workplace health and safety violations.

A number of news sources dutifully recounted the parade of transgressions OSHA inspectors had noted: blocked and restricted fire exits, failure to provide training in and enforce use of eye protective equipment, failure to provide training and issue procedures for handling hazardous chemicals, failure to securely anchor machines.

Less widely reported was one innocuous sounding violation: Insufficient Toilet Facilities. The charge drew at least a few glib jibes: “Let My People Go,” trumpeted one legal journal in a headline thumbnailing the inspection.

But few could fathom the human humiliation behind it all. Hudson workers claim they were required to ask permission before being allowed bathroom breaks—and that permission was denied as often as granted. Some say they were forced to urinate in their clothes or wear diapers to absorb the inevitable. Thom Hanson, chief regulatory compliance officer at Hudson, defended the company’s position: The workers simply “need to ask supervisors to release them,” he explained. “Normally, a relief person comes by and takes their place.”

But relief was not always in sight, according to one woman who worked five years as a packer at Hudson. “It matters how good you get along with your supervisor. Sometimes they’ll say no,” she said. “And it’s pretty hard to leave the line when you’ve got thousands of chickens coming at you.”

OSHA regulations have long required that employers provide toilets in the workplace: at least six for the first 150 workers, and one more for each additional 40 workers. But in a twist of semantics defying logic, the regulations mandate only the presence of toilets on the scene—not employees’ rights to use them. In considering the Hudson complaints, OSHA officials found for the first time that the company in effect denied workers toilet facilities when it denied them the right to use them.

In the wake of the Hudson case and the ensuing public outcry, OSHA officials dictated at last that employers must give workers prompt and reasonable access to toilet facilities, even though the regulations do not specifically require it.

An official Standards and Compliance Letter issued by OSHA noted: “Toilets that employees are not allowed to use for extended periods cannot be said to be ‘available’ to those employees.”

In other words, employers can no longer hide behind the lacking letter of the law. Employers who do not allow employees reasonable access to workplace toilets may now be cited and sanctioned by OSHA inspectors.

You can find state and local health and building codes at your city hall or county courthouse.

Conduct Codes | Privacy Rights

Some employers have fashioned comprehensive behavior codes for their employees, setting out the bounds of workplace behavior they consider Professional. The dictate that gets caught in many workers’ craws is the prohibition against dating others in the workplace, sometimes quaintly referred to as fraternizing. Others go a step farther and prohibit married couples from working in the same place.

Such attempted controls over workers’ personal relationships fly in the face of reality. Workplace experts claim that as many as 70% of all male and female workers have either dated or married someone they met at work. Those are far better odds than you have of meeting someone at a bar, party, or other social gathering specifically engineered to be a meeting place.

But courts have been painfully slow to recognize the social reality of today’s workplaces. During the last decade, employees have been fired for having extramarital affairs, for attending out-of-town conventions with someone other than a spouse, and for dating and marrying coworkers. There are no clear guidelines but an appeal to common sense. Where that fails, and an employer’s demands truly seem unreasonable, there may be no alternative but to sue.

1. Policies Against Marrying

Some employers think that nepotism—hiring an employee’s spouse or other relative—is an efficient way to recruit new workers and to keep them happy by surrounding them with loved ones. But others adamantly refuse to allow two spouses to be part of their workforce. They reason that married couples will be inconvenient at best, insisting on the same time off for vacations and holidays. At worst, they claim that being married will make workers less stable. For example, some police departments have argued that married troopers would not react objectively if a spouse got injured on the job—or that their credibility would be undermined if called to testify to support one another’s actions.

No Paint, No Powder, No Job

Darlene Jespersen toiled for nearly 20 years as a bartender at the sports bar in Harrah’s Casino in Reno. Along the way, she garnered rave performance reviews from her supervisors, along with a stack of customer feedback forms praising her excellent service and good attitude.

Then Harrah’s served up something new—a Beverage Department Image Transformation Program with new appearance standards for employees, called “Personal Best.” It required all women who work in the beverage department to wear makeup—foundation or powder, blush, lipstick, and mascara applied neatly in complimentary colors”; stockings; colored nail polish; hair “teased, curled, or styled every day” and “worn down at all times, no exceptions.”

Men, on the other hand, were simply forbidden by the policy from wearing any makeup of any kind and required to maintain trimmed hair and fingernails.

Jespersen claimed that making up was not her style—and protested that it made her feel “dolled up” like a sexual object and undermined her ability to deal with drunk or rowdy customers on the job. After gamely trying to follow the Personal best guidelines for a while, she stopped—and was fired.

Jespersen filed a federal lawsuit accusing Harrah’s of sex discrimination. But an allmale panel held against her, opining that that there was no proof that Harrah’s Personal Best policy imposed unequal burdens on men and women workers.

Jespersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co., Inc., 392 F. 3d 1076 (2004).

Some such policies, however, may be on shaky legal ground. Nearly half the states explicitly prohibit public and private employers from discriminating based on marital status.

But whether or not your state prohibits marital status discrimination, the legality of no-spouse employment rules is still unclear. Courts called upon to decide the issue have been contradictory. Some have found that there is no business justification for preventing coworkers from marrying or working together. Other courts stick stridently to the letter of workplace policies, reasoning that employees are legally free to ban married workers on their premises.

2. Policies Against Dating

Where the issue is prohibiting employees from dating rather than marrying, the law is even less clear. Few of the policies banning workers from dating have been challenged in court—most likely because the love-struck workers were surreptitious about their strickenness, or they got annoyed enough to get jobs elsewhere, or their love took a back seat to the stress of a court battle, ending the relationship.

To many, policies prohibiting coworkers from dating seem paternalistic and fly in the face of a cardinal law of human nature: Proximity Often Breeds Attraction. Those with the gumption to challenge such policies might base a legal claim on their right to privacy, freedom of association, wrongful discharge—or, if the policies are enforced disproportionately against workers of a particular age, gender, or race, they may claim a violation of civil rights.

A number of employers have adopted strict policies prohibiting supervisors from dating people they supervise, although, these days, a growing number give the supervisor the option of being transferred rather than fired on the spot. While these strong antidating policies may be understandable given the relatively low legal threshold for a supervisor’s conduct to be considered sexual harassment, they may be just as impossible to enforce.

Consider the practical difficulty, for example, in determining exactly when two people have crossed the line between friendly and involved. Strict policies prohibiting liaisons between bosses and worker bees also seem to encourage a double standard of behavior within the ranks of employees. Far better to remember that since workplace harassment is almost always about an abuse of power—not about romance gone sour—the focus should be on preventing intimidation.

Violence in the Workplace

The numbers and pronouncements about our chances of being attacked or killed while at work are scary.

Homicide reigns as the leading cause of workplace death among women. In fact, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health lists homicide as a leading cause of all work-related deaths in the United States, second only to motor vehicle crashes. More than 800 people are kill annually in American workplaces. And an estimated one million workers suffer nonfatal assaults on the job each year. The U.S. Postal Service alone reported 500 cases of employees being violent toward supervisors in a recent period of 18 months—and an additional 200 cases of supervisors acting violently toward employees. And frightening results of a recent study claim that an employee in California is more likely to be murdered at work than to die in a car accident commuting to or from work.

Part of what makes violent behavior difficult to control is that it usually comes unannounced. But most workplace killers are disgruntled former employees who have been laid off or fired or the obsessed spouse or lover of an employee. And those who kill at work, experts say, usually give off warning signals that typically include:

• following or stalking an employee to or from the place of work

• entering the workplace

• following an employee at work, and

• telephoning or sending correspondence to the employee.

Coworkers describe many individuals who have committed violence in the workplace as: loners, not team players, having a history of interpersonal conflict and displays of anger, having made threats of violence in the past, being withdrawn, showing symptoms of current drug or alcohol abuse, being argumentative and quick to blame others for their own problems and frustrations.

Both employers and employees may be able to help ward off violence by heeding these signals of disturbed souls and taking immediate action. As an employee, you should report threatening coworkers. And encourage your employer to both refer such problem coworkers to a ready source of help and tell them, in no uncertain terms, that they will be fired if their bad behavior continues.

1. Legal Developments

Realistically, employers who try to ward off violence often get caught in the conundrum of balancing employees’ safety against the rights of the potential perpetrator. On one hand, employers are charged with keeping the workplace safe. Several have been successfully sued for negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and wrongful death because they kept suspicious employees on staff who ultimately maimed or killed others on the job.

Increasingly, the pressure to act comes from victims of workplace violence and their survivors. And an increasing number of courts find employers directly liable for violence when they turn a deaf ear to workers’ complaints about inadequate security—or a blind eye to knowledge that a worker’s past actions might make him or her likely to attack coworkers and others on the job.

But employers have also felt the sting of lawsuits by employees who claim that overzealous investigations have violated laws protecting them from discrimination or invasions of their privacy.

Of late, scales are tipping in favor of keeping workplaces safe. In one recent case, for example, a Massachusetts court held that an employer, the U.S. Postal Service, was well within its rights when it fired a worker who screamed obscenities, swept the contents off a supervisor’s desk, threw a typewriter and chair, and knocked down several office partitions. The employee defended that he had an explosive personality disorder that entitled him to protection as a disabled employee rather than a pink slip. But the court held that a fundamental requirement of any job is that an employee must not be violent and destructive.

And a Florida court held recently that an employee—even one diagnosed with a chemical imbalance—could be fired on the spot for bringing a loaded gun to work.

2. Practical Prevention Steps

As reports of violence in the workplace have grown, concerned and conscientious employers and employees alike have turned to OSHA for help. While the agency has not set a specific safety standard for workplaces to follow, it has issued two sets of guidelines to help employers identify and prevent situations in workplaces with high potentials for violence: health care and social service industries and late-night retail establishments. The guidelines, which recommend setting up a violence prevention program, include five elements that may be useful for safety plans in all workplaces. If your workplace does not yet have a violence prevention program, the guidelines might serve as a starting point.

1. Management commitment and employee involvement. All violent and threatening incidents should be taken seriously—and management should develop a plan for workplace security, working with local police and other public safety agencies to improve physical security.

2. Worksite analysis. This includes identifying risk factors. For example, in retail establishments, risk factors commonly include contact with the public, exchanging money, working alone or in small numbers, and being located in a high crime area. A worksite analysis should also include a review of any past incidents, a security review, and periodic safety audits.

3. Hazard prevention and control. This includes adequate lighting, possible installation of video surveillance, drop safes, and physical barriers.

4. Training. All employees, supervisors, and security personnel should be trained to ensure awareness of potential security hazards and procedures for protecting themselves and others in the workplace.

5. Evaluation. Methods of hazard control and training needs should be evaluated—including record keeping, incident reports, police recommendations, and notes from safety meetings.

When Domestic Violence Comes to Work

In a recent survey of corporate security directors, 94% ranked the threats and battery associated with domestic violence as a high security risk in the workplace. Their feelings are justified. A full 75% of battered employees are harassed at work by their abusers—a spouse, former spouse, or member of the family or household. And, last year, there were 60,000 incidents of on-the-job violence in which those who were attacked knew their attackers intimately.

Beyond its obvious toll on human psyches, domestic violence has a huge impact on workplace productivity. For every 100 employees suffering the effects of domestic violence, 94 will take at least one extra sick day a year, over 60 will be late by more than an hour five times a month, and nearly 60 will be harassed at work on the phone by their abuser. All of this adds up to a situation where 70% of hurting, afraid, distracted, and otherwise compromised workers will have difficulty performing their jobs. And legislatures have been slow to respond to this reality. A rare exception, a California statute, provides that employers with 25 employees or more must offer domestic violence leave—reasonable time off to deal with related issues including health, counseling, safety, and housing. (Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 230.)

And a recent study of those subjected to domestic violence found that nearly 30% lost their jobs as a direct result of the abuse. Of all the other high costs associated with domestic violence, some of the most insidious from an employers’ standpoint are heightened health insurance premiums, increased workers’ compensation, and higher unemployment insurance.

The first step toward ending domestic violence is to find out the alternatives and possibilities available. If you or a coworker needs help or information on domestic violence, look in the telephone book under Crisis Intervention for local resources. Or call the National Domestic Violence Hotline for information on nearby shelters, legal help, health care advocacy, and counseling: 800-799-7233 or (TDD) 800-787-3224.

Statistics from DV Initiatives, www.dvinitiative.com, 2005