California’s Workplace Violence Prevention Law Turns Two, Part 4: Law Enforcement Agencies and POST Compliance

Announcer: Welcome to the Ogletree Deakins podcast, where we provide listeners with brief discussions about important workplace legal issues. Our podcasts are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. You can subscribe through your favorite podcast service. Please consider rating this podcast, so we can get your feedback and improve our programs. Please enjoy the podcast.

Robert Rodriguez: Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us for the Ogletree Deakins podcast. My name is Robert Rodriguez, and I’m a shareholder in the Sacramento, California office and co-chair of the Workplace Violence Prevention Practice Group. Here with me today is Karen Tynan, also co-chair of the Workplace Violence Prevention Practice Group. We’re here today to talk a little bit about the law enforcement agencies and the interplay with SB 553, the Workplace Violence Prevention Law. Thanks for joining us, Karen.

Karen Tynan: Awesome. I’m pleased to talk about this. I think this is an important exemption, and I hope that this podcast can be a way for those in law enforcement to understand the interplay with SB 553 and how that exemption works for their agency.

Robert Rodriguez: Excellent. Well, can you kick us off and explain what this law enforcement exemption is under the new workplace violence law?

Karen Tynan: Sure. There are a set of exemptions from the Workplace Violence Prevention Law, SB 553. Employers that are law enforcement agencies that are a “department or participating department” as defined in Section 1001 of Title 11 of the California Code of Regs and that have received confirmation of compliance with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, POST program, from the POST executive director can be exempt. There’s a final prong. In addition to being that type of department and being POST-compliant, the employer also has to “be exempt only if all facilities operated by that agency are in compliance with Section 3203 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.”

I want people to remember that I said, only if all facilities operated by the agency are in compliance. So, that’s the letter of the law. And I also want to share the definition of department or participating department as it’s defined related to law enforcement agencies. Now, those would be any law enforcement entity or independent communications agency which has made application to, and been accepted by, the commission to participate in POST programs and receive services. So again, a three-prong exemption for the Workplace Violence Prevention Law, it’s laid out pretty succinctly. And that’s what we’re talking about today, is that exemption and basically how you would prove it, how you confirm it, and how you make sure you’re meeting that exemption as a California employer.

Robert Rodriguez: The question I have is, the first element, law enforcement agencies, that’s not really controversial, right?

Karen Tynan: Correct. You pretty much know who those are. That might be a city police department, a county agency, a sheriff. What people traditionally think of as law enforcement does meet that definition, for sure.

Robert Rodriguez: Okay. So, the other two elements are going to be the most difficult because you start with, “Okay, I’m a law enforcement agency, but now, what are the other two elements that I have to prove?”

Karen Tynan: So, now I have to prove POST compliance, and that’s the Peace Officer Standards and Training Program. So, POST compliance, and for those interested, it’s post.ca.gov. POST compliance is about an agency having properly trained individuals who’ve taken the required courses. The way you show your POST compliance is with that letter from POST that says, “Dear leader of this law enforcement agency, you’re certified. You are compliant with POST.” And that would be the second prong of the exemption.

Robert Rodriguez: Okay, great. Now, the third one, in my experience, it seems like it’s the most difficult to probably prove. So, what does this compliance with Section 3203 mean?

Karen Tynan: Sure. Section 3203 is our IIPP regulation in California, right, Robert? It really is kind of the bread and butter of Cal/OSHA, and it’s the regulation that governs injury and illness prevention programs and plans. So, when you go through those elements, you can see why Section 3203 is one of the most frequently cited regulations and citations, right, Robert?

Robert Rodriguez: Right.

Karen Tynan: If we go through section 3203, you can see the elements that a law enforcement agency would have to show. So, let’s go through those. First and foremost, the IIPP has to identify the person or persons with authority and responsibility for the program. So, let’s talk about that. That’s on paper. What we typically see in that would be, on the first page of an IIPP, it’s going to say, “Here’s the person. Robert Rodriguez, our head of HR, is responsible for the implementation of our IIPP.” It typically has their contact information, and that would satisfy that first element. Does that make sense, Robert?

Robert Rodriguez: Yeah, absolutely.

Karen Tynan: So, then the next element in the IIPP, so that you can be compliant and take advantage of or utilize this exemption, is the IIPP having a system for ensuring that employees comply with safe and healthy work practices. So, that would look like recognition of employees who follow practices, training and retraining programs, disciplinary actions. That’s what this element means. One of the ways we typically show compliance with this section when there’s a citation is we show discipline of employees for violating safety standards within a company or who have to be retrained. So, that second element is very broad. And I could see where trying to gather all your IIPP documents related to training, retraining, discipline, everything around compliance, that’s a pretty big lift. And I want people to understand how robust that second part of IIPP compliance is, Robert.

Robert Rodriguez: Just to interject, because I’ve had some questions about the exemptions that require compliance with 3203, the IIPP regulations, and some of the clients I’ve worked with this said, “Well, I’ve got the written IIPP. Isn’t that enough?” So, what do you think about that, and how does the effective requirement impact this?

Karen Tynan: Well, sure. Having the beautiful IIPP program in the binder on the shelf that has a healthy layer of dust and fuzz on it isn’t going to meet the requirement. Being in compliance with 3203 doesn’t just mean on paper, it means implemented.

Robert Rodriguez: Effectively implemented.

Karen Tynan: Effectively implemented. So, I think that’s an important consideration so that agencies can understand that it’s not simply a matter of the written word on the paper, but the true program that the agency has.

Robert Rodriguez: Because I mean, technically, obviously we would litigate this, but Cal/OSHA could take the stance that, “Okay, you’ve got this IIPP, you’ve got every single element, but maybe you actually didn’t train your folks on the IIPP, therefore you’re not in compliance with 3203.”

Karen Tynan: Right.

Robert Rodriguez: So, it’s every piece of the regulation you have to be in compliance with.

Karen Tynan: Oh, for sure. Even think about this one, element number three, which there’s a requirement under the IIPP regulation that the employer has to have a system for communicating with employees, in a form readily understandable by all those affected employees, on matters related to occupational safety and health. So, that means effective safety meetings, training programs, postings, written communication, things like that. So, we’re back to your comment from a few seconds ago, Robert, of it’s not just what’s on paper, but what is this system for communicating with employees around occupational safety and health?

Robert Rodriguez: Right.

Karen Tynan: So, there’s that element. Now, next, another element under the IIPP, Section 4, is procedures for identifying and evaluating workplace hazards, including scheduled periodic inspections. So, think about it. How are you going to prove your scheduled periodic inspections that you’re utilizing to identify and evaluate hazards? That’s another element that needs to be buttoned up. You need to be tight on that.

Now, further into the requirements of the IPP is the procedure to investigate occupational injuries and occupational illnesses. So, your IIPP has to have that procedure, and you need to be effectively utilizing that procedure in your investigations. Further, next, you have to have a method or procedure for correcting unsafe and unhealthy conditions. So, think about that. I may have it written on a sheet of paper, but do I have the proof to show that I’ve got these methods and procedures for correcting unsafe and unhealthy conditions, work practices or work procedures? That’s another area where there’s some pitfalls for employers. And then, certainly, the IIPP regulation requires training and instruction. So, do you have effective training and instruction?

And then lastly, I want to mention, and this isn’t a difficult element, but you need to have that element in your IIPP with employee access to the IIPP. Folks typically do that on the intranet, the IIPP is posted, it’s available. We’ve talked a lot about these IIPP elements, and so that IIPP is part of the third prong of your exemption. So, you really have three prongs, but that third prong has a lot in there, Robert.

Robert Rodriguez: Right. Yeah. Whose responsibility is it to prove compliance with the IIPP under this exemption?

Karen Tynan: We come back to, and you were very articulate before in our other podcast, it would be our burden to show compliance with the exemption. In our experience, providing the IIPP and training records and hazard assessments and much more may not convince the inspector that a law enforcement agency has met the exemption. I would like to live in a more magical or hopeful world, but I am realistic that proving compliance with the IIPP standard is the employer’s burden. Sometimes inspectors may not be receptive to the proof that we are also considering.

Robert Rodriguez: What are some practical implications for law enforcement agencies?

Karen Tynan: I was thinking about this, Robert, and really this comes back to IIPP compliance, law enforcement agencies making sure they’re complying with Section 3203. And then another practical implication that I’d like to make sure I throw out there for the listeners is, the Cal/OSHA inspectors who are typically safety engineers or industrial hygienists and who have particular areas of expertise are going to be investigating agencies who have their own expertise in law enforcement. And I think I could boldly step out on a ledge and say safety engineers and industrial hygienists investigating law enforcement agencies can be a bit difficult for them because they’re outside the scope of their knowledge base. Am I too far out there, Robert, on that?

Robert Rodriguez: No, I think you’ve got a good expression that I’ve heard for these types of situations that maybe they’re over their skis.

Karen Tynan: Right, right. So, I think for law enforcement agencies, a consideration is… Well, the inspector who’s coming out to, even let’s say they’ve come out to a jail facility, they’re inspecting. The safety engineer or the industrial hygienist isn’t going to have that depth of expertise about security procedures that your average law enforcement employee would have. I think that’s a bit of a gap.

Robert Rodriguez: How do law enforcement agencies ensure they are exempt?

Karen Tynan: Well, I think that the two basic parts of that are the POST compliance and the IIPP compliance. I don’t see a lot of agencies expressing a concern of POST compliance. It seems to be something that they have good processes around. They’re used to doing it, not a problem. The IIPP, the regulation’s been around for a very long time, but it is a matter of dotting your i’s and crossing your t’s. So, for law enforcement agencies, it is about that POST and IIPP compliance. So, you’ve got four letters in both of those, POST and IIPP. That’s it.

Robert Rodriguez: All right. Easy to remember. What are the areas or typical citations a law and enforcement agency could see pursued by Cal/OSHA?

Karen Tynan: Well, I do see that law enforcement agencies, if you’re talking about workplace violence or the typical citations we see, usually fall around training and record keeping. Cal/OSHA can be a stickler. They want the training records to have the name of the instructor, the date of the training, the subject of the training, i.e., a description, and then who is trained. And I think you and I have seen over the years that not every spreadsheet about training has that, right?

Robert Rodriguez: Right. Yeah.

Karen Tynan: So, having really good records around training, record keeping about hazards, hazard assessments under the IIPP, because you don’t want to get those IIPP citations. And then what I’m seeing also 2026 is the idea of PPE for law enforcement and what is proper PPE in addressing workplace violence, because you want to fall under that exemption, and there’s a bit of overlap in PPE because that comes into how you address hazards. So those are my closing thoughts. I do think this area around the exemptions is going to get fleshed out more in litigation as employers challenge some citations and maybe exemptions. We get some case law around it so we can advise folks better, but that’s where we are for 2026, Robert.

Robert Rodriguez: Well, thanks for all the great information around law enforcement agencies and potential exemptions. Appreciate that. And thanks to everyone for listening to Robert and Karen. Check out our blog articles on ogletree.com, our Workplace Violence Prevention Practice Group page, our LinkedIn pages, and our recorded webinars. Stay safe out there.

Karen Tynan: Thanks, everybody.

Announcer: Thank you for joining us on the Ogletree Deakins podcast. You can subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts or through your favorite podcast service. Please consider rating and reviewing so that we may continue to provide the content that covers your needs. And remember, the information in this podcast is for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as legal advice.