Courts may not shortcut constitutional rights

Workplace violence injunctions are relatively easy to obtain, as judges are motivated to err on the side of preventing jobsite violence. Does that need for expediency trump the constitutional rights of the accused?

Denial of right to cross-examine warrants reversal

Jermorio Lucas was living at the Aranda Residence, a residential hotel that provides supportive housing to formerly homeless individuals, run by CSV HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LLC. In January 2021, CSV filed a petition for a workplace violence restraining order against Lucas. The company submitted affidavits from four of its employees in support of the petition.

To obtain a workplace violence restraining order, an employer must prove its employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from an individual in the workplace:

[The employer] must establish by clear and convincing evidence not only that [the individual] engaged in unlawful violence or made credible threats of violence, but also 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. . . . The requirement of establishing the reasonable probability of wrongful acts, or simply unlawful violence, will occur in the future guarantees that injunctive relief will be issued to prevent future harm instead of punishing past completed acts