Virginia Workplace Violence Prevention — What Employers Need to Know

Virginia's 2025 legislative session produced two workplace violence prevention bills with very different outcomes — and understanding both is essential for any Virginia employer assessing their current obligations.

House Bill 1919 would have required all Virginia employers with 100 or more employees to develop, implement, and maintain a written workplace violence prevention policy by January 1, 2027. The bill passed the General Assembly on March 7, 2025 with strong support. On March 24, 2025, Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed it. His stated rationale: workplace violence is a criminal matter, not a regulatory one, and existing VOSH authority already covers workplace hazards.

House Bill 2269 and Senate Bill 1162 — identical companion bills — took a different path. Covering healthcare employers specifically, both were signed into law by Governor Youngkin on March 24, 2025, the same day he vetoed HB 1919. They are in effect now.

Understanding what HB 1919 required is useful even though it did not become law — because it defines the legislative intent that will return in 2027, and because the bill's requirements represent the standard a well-designed voluntary program should meet regardless of mandate.

HB 1919 would have required covered employers to develop a policy tailored to the specific conditions and hazards of their workplace — not a template, not a generic document. The policy would have required a named individual or team responsible for implementation, a documented mechanism for employees to report incidents without fear of retaliation, immediate incident response procedures and post-incident investigation protocols, and a risk assessment identifying potential workplace violence hazards and controls.

The bill would also have required documentation of all reported workplace violence incidents — including the date, time, location, names and job titles of employees involved, the nature and extent of any injuries, and how the incident was resolved — retained for not less than five years. Employers found non-compliant would have faced civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.

The governor's veto does not eliminate the underlying obligation to maintain a safe workplace. Virginia OSHA retains authority to cite employers for workplace hazards under the General Duty Clause. An employer that experiences a workplace violence incident without a functioning prevention program has exposure regardless of whether a specific statute required one.

Governor Youngkin's veto message explicitly noted that the Virginia Occupational Safety and Health program already has authority to address workplace hazards — and he is correct. VOSH enforces workplace safety requirements under the General Duty Clause, which requires employers to maintain a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm.

Workplace violence is a recognized hazard under the General Duty Clause. An employer that has received threats, experienced prior incidents, or operates in a high-risk environment and has taken no prevention measures is exposed to VOSH enforcement independent of any specific statute.

The practical difference between a specific statute and General Duty Clause enforcement is predictability. SB-553 tells California employers exactly what they need. The General Duty Clause tells Virginia employers they need something — and leaves the standard of care to be determined case by case. That ambiguity cuts both ways: there is no bright-line compliance test, but there is also no safe harbor from doing nothing.

For healthcare employers, the answer is straightforward: build a compliant program now. The law is in effect. The obligation exists regardless of whether a formal enforcement action has been brought.

For general industry employers with Virginia operations, the recommended posture is equally clear: build the program voluntarily, ahead of the legislative cycle. The reasons are practical rather than philosophical.

A voluntary program built to the HB 1919 standard — site-specific, with a named responsible party, a functioning reporting mechanism, and documented incident records — provides General Duty Clause protection now. It positions the organization ahead of the 2027 mandate. It transfers directly to any other state mandate the organization faces, since the requirements across California, Virginia, New York, and the states actively developing legislation are structurally similar.

Organizations that are already California SB-553 compliant have the harder work done. The Virginia program is an adaptation of existing documentation to a new regulatory framework — not a rebuild. Kestralis Group builds both as a coordinated system for multi-state employers.