Workplace Violence Lessons from Connecticut

You are undoubtedly aware of the tragic workplace violence in Manchester, Connecticut. (Click here, here and here for recent recaps.) A few new facts have emerged but shed little light on this deadly event.  As fellow blogger Daniel Schwartz, a lawyer in Connecticut, wrote yesterday, the “awful truth” is that, no matter how right employers do things, there is no absolute way to prevent workplace violence once an employee has crossed the line and decided to kill co-workers. I came to a similar conclusion when I wrote several posts on the Fort Hood violence.

I do nonetheless want to address in this longer-than-usual post a question raised by Daniel Schwartz about whether any lessons can be learned from the Connecticut tragedy. Despite the seeming futility of preventing workplace violence, I think these terrible occurrences always contain lessons.

The shooter had a somewhat troubled past, but he had never been in jail. He had been with his girlfriend the night before and gave no clue as to what might happen the next day. He was described as not having “a mean bone in his body” and being a mellow and peaceful person. But he did like guns and had several, all of which he had permits to possess.

He knew he had a disciplinary meeting first thing on the morning when the tragedy occurred. He had been told that his employer had a videotape which showed the employee stealing the employer’s product. He went to the meeting accompanied by a union representative. The meeting lasted no more than 15 minutes. The employee was given the choice to resign or be fired. He signed a resignation form without admitting or denying the theft or even arguing. It doesn’t appear that the union representative objected to the outcome of the meeting.

The employee had brought two handguns with him that morning in what appeared to be a lunch bag. As he was about to be escorted from the premises, he pulled out the guns and began firing as he walked and ran through the employer’s large warehouse. Eight co-workers were killed, others were wounded, and the employee killed himself. It appeared that he targeted at least some of his victims, all of whom had multiple gunshot wounds.

When incidents of workplace violence occur, the shooter is often described as a good person. It is often said that there was no reason to be suspicious. It almost always appears that the shooter-employee suddenly pulled a gun or guns and began firing before anyone knew what was happening. All of this seems to apply to the Connecticut shooting. But let’s take a look at a couple of things more closely.

First, according to the employee’s girlfriend, the employee (who was black) had been racially harassed at work. On the bathroom wall, there was a drawing of a stick figure with a noose around his neck. The girlfriend also said she had seen on the employee’s cellphone pictures of the stick figure and racial slurs written on the wall. On another occasion, the employee called his girlfriend and held the phone so that she could hear his supervisor and another employee talking disparagingly about blacks. The employee told his girlfriend that he had complained about these things, but his supervisor refused to do anything.

Both the employer and the union say that the employee never complained about racial harassment. They say if he had, action would have been taken by both the employer and the union to address the complaint. But witnesses say it appeared that the shooter targeted certain co-workers on his shooting rampage. In one account of a telephone conversation he had with his mother immediately before taking his own life, the employee is quoted as saying that he had shot “the five racists.”

The employee’s words and actions while he was shooting co-workers seem to indicate that he at least believed he had been racially harassed. It may be that we’ll never know for sure. However, we should remind ourselves, our supervisors, and our employees that harassment claims must be taken seriously. If an employee really is being harassed on a continuing basis, it can make the employee’s life miserable, not to mention violating the law. It doesn’t justify shooting co-workers by any means, but if there is enough harassment to make an employee snap, workplace violence is not out of the question.

Second, the circumstances leading up to the shooting should be examined. No one expects an employee to pull a gun and start shooting. Employees are disciplined and terminated all the time without violence occurring. But a termination is a very serious matter. The livelihood of the employee is being taken away, and it’s quite difficult to find another job right now. In hindsight, the employee’s failure to say or do anything when he was terminated should have alerted company representatives that something wasn’t quite right.

At the time of an employee’s termination and his being escorted from the employer’s facility, it might be a good idea for two company representatives to escort him and keep a close eye on him. If an employee has determined to commit multiple killings, the time immediately after a termination might be an ideal time as far as the employee is concerned. There’s no way to know for sure what’s in an employee’s mind when he’s terminated. In the Connecticut case, the employee gave no overt indication of his real intentions.

I’ll end this post where I began it. It’s impossible (or close to it) to prevent workplace violence if an employee has already decided to carry it out and has the weapons to do it. However, each time an incident of workplace violence occurs, it should be studied carefully by all employers. Something will always be learned that will make your workplace violence policy a little better — that may lessen slightly the chances of what happened in Connecticut being repeated in your workplace.

1. 

   Anne Kluza says:

   August 13, 2010 at 11:52 am

   I agree that we cannot prevent violence if the employee is determined, but we can try to limit the exposure. In this case, he was forewarned about the evidence and subject of the meeting, it was not held in an isolated area where he could immediately depart the building without interaction with other employees.
   It is easy to question the procedure after the fact and from a safe distance, but maybe we can become more aware in the future.
2. 

   J Wiens says:

   August 13, 2010 at 5:13 pm

   Managers should be trained to spot workplace problems and how to handle them – the problem seems to be that too many supervisors or managers really don’t care.

   These are tough times right now, but it’s up to the employer to see that their employee handbook is current and that their supervisors and/or managers have read and understand the employee handbook for their company.

   This is a must for employers. People are under a lot of pressure in their jobs and to allow harassment to continue unnoticed or put on the back burner is a serious mistake that could cost the company lots of money. And people their lives.

   I would also suggest background checks at hiring.
3. 

   Marc Brenman says:

   August 15, 2010 at 7:34 am

   Thanks, John, points very well-taken, especially about the need to take seriously allegations of discrimination, harassment, and racism.
4. 

   John Phillips says:

   August 16, 2010 at 11:12 am

   Anne, J, and Marc,

   Thanks very much for your comments. They added significant guidance on this tough subject.

   John
5. 

   Patrick says:

   August 16, 2010 at 11:57 am

   Thanks for sharing your thoughts, John. FWIW, I also understood from news reports that the shooter was allowed to go unescorted to a locker to retrieve the “lunch bag.” Employees who are fired, at least in these circumstances, should not be left alone until they are out of the workplace.
6. 

   John Phillips says:

   August 16, 2010 at 12:23 pm

   Patrick,

   Thanks for making another good point. It was my understanding that he had left his lunch bag in the kitchen and was allowed to go alone back to the kitchen to retrieve the lunch bag. Either way, he was allowed to go unescorted after he was terminated. As you point out,an employee shouldn’t be left alone under these circumstances.

   John