Georgia Workplace Violence: Your Rights in 2026

Misinformation abounds regarding workplace violence incidents, particularly in the context of security duty in locations like Athens, Georgia, making it difficult for individuals to understand their rights and responsibilities. Understanding the truth behind common myths is important for anyone involved in or affected by such events.

Myth 1: Workplace Violence is Excluded from Workers’ Compensation if it’s a Criminal Act

Many believe that if a workplace violence incident involves a criminal act, like an assault by a third party, it automatically falls outside the scope of workers’ compensation. This is a significant misconception. In Georgia, the workers’ compensation system is designed to provide benefits for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, regardless of fault. The nature of the act, whether criminal or not, doesn’t inherently disqualify a claim. Consider a security guard working at a retail establishment near the Five Points area in downtown Athens. If that guard is assaulted while attempting to de-escalate a shoplifting incident, their injuries would generally be covered by workers’ compensation. The key is the connection between the employment and the injury. The Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation (sbwc.georgia.gov) consistently upholds this principle, focusing on whether the employment placed the individual at a greater risk of injury. For security personnel, whose job inherently involves managing potential conflicts, the link between their duties and the risk of violence is often clear. The critical factor is demonstrating that the injury occurred while performing job-related duties or as a direct consequence of their employment.

Myth 2: Employers Are Not Responsible for Violence Perpetrated by Third Parties

Another pervasive myth is that employers bear no responsibility for workplace violence if the perpetrator is not an employee. This is incorrect. Employers in Georgia, and across the United States, have a general duty to provide a safe workplace. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) mandates that employers furnish to each of their employees “employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.” This is known as the General Duty Clause, codified under 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1) (osha.gov). For security teams operating in Athens, whether at large venues like the Classic Center or smaller businesses along Prince Avenue, this means employers must assess and mitigate foreseeable risks of violence. If an employer is aware of previous incidents, threats, or a high-risk environment and fails to implement reasonable security measures (e.g., adequate staffing, proper training, functional surveillance systems), they could be found negligent. This doesn’t mean they are strictly liable for every act of violence, but they are responsible for taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. For instance, if a bar in downtown Athens has a history of late-night altercations and hires a security guard but provides no training in de-escalation or proper protective equipment, the employer’s inaction could be a significant factor in any subsequent injury claim.

Injured at work?

Know what your case is worth with AI Workers' Comp Payout Calculator for FREE!

Start my free evaluation

Myth 3: Security Personnel Are Always Expected to Handle Violence Without Assistance

The idea that security personnel, by virtue of their role, are expected to handle any violent situation independently is a dangerous and false assumption. While their training often involves de-escalation and self-defense, there are clear limits to what an individual can and should do. Expecting a single security guard to confront multiple armed individuals, for example, is not only unrealistic but also irresponsible. Employers have a responsibility to provide appropriate resources and support. This includes clear protocols for calling law enforcement, backup personnel, and access to necessary equipment. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) provides extensive resources on preventing workplace violence, emphasizing the importance of complete safety programs that include emergency response plans and adequate staffing (cdc.gov). If a security officer is injured because their employer failed to provide reasonable backup or clear guidelines for when to disengage and call for police, that failure can impact a workers’ compensation claim and potentially lead to other legal actions. A security officer working at a busy event at Sanford Stadium, for instance, should have clear communication channels and designated support teams, not just be left to manage a large crowd alone.

Myth 4: Reporting an Incident Only Matters for Criminal Charges

Many individuals mistakenly believe that reporting a workplace violence incident, especially involving security duty, primarily serves the purpose of pressing criminal charges against the perpetrator. While criminal prosecution is often a vital outcome, timely and thorough reporting has far broader implications, particularly for civil claims and workers’ compensation. In Georgia, strict deadlines apply to reporting workplace injuries to employers. O.C.G.A. § 34-9-80 stipulates that an employee must provide notice of an injury to their employer within 30 days of the accident. Failure to do so can jeopardize a workers’ compensation claim. Beyond this, detailed incident reports are important evidence. These reports should document the date, time, location (e.g., the specific address on Broad Street in Athens), individuals involved, nature of the injuries, and any witnesses. This documentation forms the backbone of any subsequent workers’ compensation application or personal injury lawsuit. Without a clear, documented record, proving the injury occurred at work and was work-related becomes significantly more challenging. Plus, prompt reporting allows the employer to initiate an investigation, which can help identify systemic issues and prevent future incidents.

Myth 5: You Can’t Pursue Legal Action Beyond Workers’ Compensation for Workplace Violence

This is perhaps one of the most common and damaging myths. While workers’ compensation generally provides the exclusive remedy against an employer for work-related injuries, there there are critical exceptions, particularly in cases of workplace violence. If an employer’s actions (or inactions) were particularly egregious, demonstrating gross negligence or intentional misconduct, an injured worker might be able to pursue a separate personal injury lawsuit against the employer. This is a high bar, but not an impossible one to meet, particularly if there’s a pattern of disregard for safety. More commonly, an injured security worker can pursue a personal injury claim against the perpetrator of the violence, separate from any workers’ compensation claim. This is often referred to as a “third-party claim.” For example, if a security guard is injured while working at a specific establishment in Athens and the perpetrator is a customer or another third party, the guard can file a workers’ compensation claim against their employer and simultaneously pursue a personal injury claim against the individual who caused the harm. The compensation received from a third-party claim can often cover damages not fully addressed by workers’ compensation, such as pain and suffering or punitive damages. Working through these overlapping legal avenues requires careful legal counsel, as there can be complexities regarding subrogation (where the workers’ compensation insurer seeks reimbursement from any third-party settlement). Understanding these distinctions is paramount. Workplace violence, especially when it affects security professionals who put themselves at risk, is a serious matter with significant legal ramifications. Don’t let common misconceptions prevent you from understanding and asserting your rights.