A California employer doesn’t have to wait for a threatened employee to go to court. Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 lets “Any employer or collective bargaining representative of an employee who has suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence” ask for a restraining order on the employee’s behalf. The order moves fast. It also puts the employer’s own handling of the threat in front of a judge, and a thin petition can give a fired employee a retaliation story.
What is a workplace violence restraining order?
It’s a civil order, requested by the employer, that bars one person from threatening or approaching an employee.
Section 527.8 lets the employer petition “on behalf of the employee and, at the discretion of the court, any number of other employees at the workplace.” The respondent can be anyone: a coworker, a former employee, a customer, a vendor, or an employee’s former partner who keeps turning up in the parking lot. The order can direct the respondent to stay away, including an order against “coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of, the employee.” On a showing of good cause, subdivision (d) lets the court extend protection to “other named family or household members, or other persons employed at the employee’s workplace or workplaces.”
The statute has changed twice in recent years. The version operative since January 1, 2025, lets a union representative file too. AB 394 (Stats. 2025, ch. 147), effective January 1, 2026, added that “employee” also includes “a volunteer or independent contractor who performs services for the employer at the employer’s worksite,” and the current text calls that change “declaratory of existing law.”
These orders have teeth. Under subdivision (t), a restrained person “shall not own, possess, purchase, receive, or attempt to purchase or receive a firearm or ammunition while the protective order is in effect.” Intentional disobedience is punishable under Penal Code section 273.6, and the order goes into the statewide law enforcement database so officers responding to a call can see it.
What does the employer have to prove?
That a threat or act of violence happened, and that it’s likely to happen again.
The temporary order comes first. Subdivision (f) requires a declaration showing “Reasonable proof that an employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence by the respondent, and that great or irreparable harm would result to an employee.” A request made without notice “shall be granted or denied on the same day that the petition is submitted to the court,” unless it comes in too late in the day for review. At the later hearing the bar rises. Under subdivision (k), “If the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent engaged in harassment, engaged in unlawful violence, or made a credible threat of violence, an order shall issue prohibiting further harassment, unlawful violence, or threats of violence.”
The definitions do much of the work. A “Credible threat of violence” is “a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for their safety, or the safety of their immediate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose,” according to subdivision (b)(2). The fear has to be reasonable. A manager’s discomfort with an angry employee isn’t enough.
Past conduct alone won’t carry the petition. In Scripps Health v. Marin (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 324, the Court of Appeal reversed an order against a patient’s son after a single confrontation at a hospital, explaining that “injunctive relief lies only to prevent threatened injury and has no application to wrongs that have been completed.” Whether harm is likely to recur, the court said, “rests upon the nature of the unlawful violent act evaluated in the light of the relevant surrounding circumstances of its commission and whether precipitating circumstances continue to exist so as to establish the likelihood of future harm.” City of San Jose v. Garbett (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 526 restated the rule: the petitioner must show that “great or irreparable harm would result to an employee if a prohibitory injunction were not issued due to the reasonable probability unlawful violence will occur in the future.” Both decisions cite subdivisions that the Legislature has since relettered, but the requirement carries over.
That’s where petitions are won and lost. A declaration that tells the story of one bad afternoon, and nothing after it, is the petition most likely to fail. The stronger ones explain why the danger is still live: the respondent was just fired, keeps calling, knows the employee’s shift, or has tied the threat to a grievance that hasn’t gone away.
| What the court looks for | Where it comes from | What the employer’s evidence should show |
|---|---|---|
| Unlawful violence or a credible threat | CCP § 527.8(b)(2), (b)(8) | The exact words or acts, who saw or heard them, and when |
| A likelihood of future harm | Scripps Health; Garbett | Why the danger continues now |
| Clear and convincing proof at the hearing | CCP § 527.8(k) | Firsthand declarations from the witnesses, not summaries |
| No restraint on protected activity | CCP § 527.8(c) | Conduct unrelated to protest or organizing |
| The employer’s handling of a current employee | CCP § 527.8(k) | The investigation and the discipline decision |
| A chance for the employee to opt out | CCP § 527.8(e) | A documented offer made before filing |
Does the threat have to name a particular employee?
No. A general threat against the workplace can support an order protecting the person most likely to be targeted.
In USS-Posco Industries v. Edwards (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 436, a mill worker had talked to coworkers about bringing a gun to work. The employer fired him and got an order protecting his supervisor, who had started the discipline. The court held that “an employer subjected to generalized threats of workplace violence may obtain relief under section 527.8 on behalf of an employee who is a logical target of the threats, even if the employee was not specifically identified by the harasser.” Reading the statute otherwise, the court reasoned, “would indeed be absurd” because it “would provide no protection against a threat to indiscriminately shoot employees on the premises.”
The coworkers carried the case. The worker argued that tough talk was routine at the mill, and the court answered that the argument failed “to account for the other, more serious threats reported by” his coworkers. Without those witnesses, the employer would have had one supervisor’s fear and a disputed conversation.
What can’t a section 527.8 order restrain?
Protected speech and labor activity. Subdivision (c) says the statute “does not permit a court to issue a temporary restraining order or order after hearing prohibiting speech or other activities that are constitutionally protected, protected by the National Labor Relations Act.” For a harassment-based temporary order, subdivision (f) requires clear and convincing evidence “That the issuance of the order is not prohibited by subdivision (c).”
Harassment petitions have a higher bar for another reason. The statute defines harassment as “a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose,” and the conduct “must actually cause substantial emotional distress.” A loud employee who keeps complaining about pay, or a former worker picketing on the sidewalk, isn’t a 527.8 case. Filing anyway invites a judge to say so on the record.
What if the respondent still works for the company?
Then the judge will look at how the employer handled it. Under subdivision (k), “if the respondent is currently employed by the employer of the employee, as described in subdivision (a), the judge shall receive evidence concerning the employer’s decision to retain, terminate, or otherwise discipline the respondent.”
That evidence doesn’t stay in the restraining order case. A respondent who’s fired often sues, and the petition and the hearing testimony become exhibits in the wrongful termination case. In USS-Posco, the fired worker argued on appeal that the petition was retaliation for his earlier discrimination complaints. The court found no “direct evidence of a retaliatory motive” and added that “Given the serious nature of the threats discovered by UPI management after the Rowell incident, there could have been no justification for denying injunctive relief based on an inferred retaliatory motive.” The employer won because its investigation turned up serious threats from several witnesses. An employer with a thinner file and a respondent with a recent complaint is in a harder spot.
The petition also doesn’t change the employer’s safety obligations. Subdivision (v) says the statute “shall not be construed as expanding, diminishing, altering, or modifying the duty, if any, of an employer to provide a safe workplace for employees and other persons.” Most California employers now keep a written plan and a violent incident log, covered in the firm’s post on the workplace violence prevention plan under SB 553. Those records are usually the first exhibits in a 527.8 petition.
Experienced counsel defending California employers treats the petition and any later employment claim as one record, because the same declarations will be read in both.
What to do when an employee reports a threat
- Preserve the threat itself (texts, voicemails, emails, social media posts, video), the incident report, the investigation notes, the respondent’s personnel file, and the company’s workplace violence prevention plan and incident log.
- Calendar the hearing the court sets on any petition, and check whether the company’s employment practices liability (EPLI) policy requires notice of a claim that could follow, such as a wrongful termination suit by the respondent.
- Identify the witnesses who saw or heard the conduct firsthand and the managers who’ll decide discipline, give the threatened employee the chance to decline to be named, and make sure no one takes action against the employee who reported the threat that could look like retaliation.
- Pull the documents the petition depends on: any prior complaints by or about the respondent, earlier discipline, the termination paperwork if there is any, and the respondent’s access to the worksite.
- Talk to a lawyer before filing, before contacting the respondent about the petition, and before deciding whether to terminate.
FAQ
Can a union file a workplace violence petition for an employee?
Yes. Since January 1, 2025, section 527.8 allows a collective bargaining representative to petition, but only if the person “serves as a collective bargaining representative for that employee in employment or labor matters at the employee’s workplace.” An employer may learn of a union-filed petition only after it’s filed, so supervisors should know to send any court papers to HR and counsel at once.
Does the threatened employee have to agree to the petition?
Not to the petition, but the employee can stay off it. Before filing, the statute says the employer must give the employee “an opportunity to decline to be named in the temporary restraining order.” An employee who declines doesn’t stop the employer from seeking an order protecting other employees. Employers should document that the offer was made, because a declining employee may later say the company acted without consent.
Can the employer get an order against a customer or a former employee?
Yes. Section 527.8 reaches threats “from any individual” that can reasonably be construed as carried out at the workplace. Former employees and customers are common respondents, and so are employees’ former partners. The same proof applies: a credible threat or violence, and a reasonable probability it will recur. A former employee’s threats in the days after a termination are often the strongest example of continuing danger.
Is there a filing fee?
Usually not for a petition based on violence or threats. Subdivision (x) says “There is no filing fee for a petition that alleges that a person has inflicted or threatened violence against an employee employed or represented by the petitioner.” Fees for sheriff or marshal service are also waived in most violence and threat cases. The bigger cost is the time managers and witnesses spend preparing declarations and attending the hearing.
If your company is dealing with a threat at work
If your company is weighing a workplace violence petition, or defending a claim from an employee removed after threats, the investigation file usually decides both. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims involving workplace threats and retaliation after discipline. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8, as amended by AB 394 (Stats. 2025, ch. 147). The decisions are Scripps Health v. Marin (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 324, USS-Posco Industries v. Edwards (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 436, and City of San Jose v. Garbett (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 526.
This post is general information about California and federal employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.