Wage & Hour
Employer’s Right to Seek a Workplace Violence Order Is Unwaivable
Updated
In Adelanto Elementary School District v. Krause, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that an employer’s statutory right to seek a workplace violence restraining order on behalf of its employees is unwaivable under Civil Code section 3513, even if a separation agreement released existing claims. The court found sufficient evidence of a future threat of harassment but modified the order—striking a provision that barred the restrained party from commenting on the case at Board meetings and cutting its duration from four years to three. The order was affirmed as modified.
Background
Michael Krause served as superintendent of the Adelanto Elementary School District until his termination on June 30, 2024. Three executive assistants described a two-year pattern of conduct, including angry outbursts, unsolicited photos, after-hours texts, and messages showing that Krause knew their whereabouts near their homes and workplaces.
When the parties ended his employment, they signed a separation agreement that released the District’s claims relating to Krause’s employment and included a successors-and-assigns clause. Krause was later elected to the District’s Board of Trustees.
In October 2024, the District petitioned for a workplace violence restraining order on the employees’ behalf under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8. After a four-day hearing, the San Bernardino County Superior Court granted the order for four years.
What the Court Held on Waiver
Krause argued that the release barred the District from seeking the order, since most of the conduct predated the agreement. The Court of Appeal assumed the release could reach the proceeding but held it could not be enforced to bar it.
Civil Code section 3513 provides that a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by private agreement. Drawing on Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., the court reasoned that combatting workplace violence, threats, and harassment is a primary public purpose of section 527.8, not a merely incidental benefit.
Because the statute lets an employer act “on behalf of the employee” and serves the broad public interest in workplace safety, the court concluded the right is unwaivable.
An employer’s statutory right to prosecute a workplace violence restraining order on behalf of its employees is unwaivable under Civil Code section 3513, because that right is not intended solely for the employer and serves a primary public purpose.
Evidence of Future Harassment
The court also rejected Krause’s argument that the record lacked evidence of future harm. It explained that the 2023 amendment adding “harassment” to section 527.8 means the older standard requiring a reasonable probability of future violence no longer controls.
Under current law, a reasonable probability of continued harassment suffices. Reviewing the findings for substantial evidence, the court pointed to the sustained pattern of conduct, contacts that continued after Krause was placed on leave, and his lack of remorse.
The Speech Restriction and Duration
Krause prevailed on two points. The court held that a provision barring him from commenting on the order or the proceedings at regular Board meetings was overbroad and violated his First Amendment rights as an elected official, since it swept beyond threats or harassment.
Other provisions still prohibit him from harassing or contacting the protected employees, with no exception for Board meetings. The court also modified the order’s duration from four years to the three-year statutory maximum under section 527.8, subdivision (l)(1), and affirmed the order as modified.
What This Means for You
This decision establishes that an employer’s right to seek a workplace violence restraining order on behalf of its employees cannot be waived by contract, including a separation agreement releasing claims. It also confirms that, after the 2023 amendment, a reasonable probability of continued harassment—not future violence—can support such an order, while First Amendment limits still cap how broadly it may restrict a restrained official’s speech.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.