Negligent Hiring and Retention in NJ: When Your Employer Is Liable for a Dangerous Coworker's Actions

Not every workplace injury stems from an isolated act that nobody could have anticipated. In some cases, the question is whether warning signs involving a dangerous coworker existed before the incident. Negligent hiring and retention claims in New Jersey focus on that issue. 

Workplace stalking, violence, harassment, threats, assaults, and other forms of misconduct often become the subject of litigation when questions arise about what was known before the incident occurred. Throughout our work at Brandon J. Broderick, we have seen many cases in which concerns about an employee's conduct existed well before anyone was injured.

Employers argue that the behavior was unexpected or beyond their control. Negligent hiring and retention claims focus instead on prior complaints and disciplinary issues. When warning signs are ignored, an employer may face liability for harm caused by a dangerous employee.

In this guide, we discuss the types of warning signs that can create employer liability, why an employer may be responsible for a coworker's actions, how workplace safety obligations are evaluated, and when to consult an employment lawyer in New Jersey.

How New Jersey Law Addresses Dangerous Coworkers and Employer Responsibility 

Most employees assume an employer is responsible for maintaining a reasonably safe workplace. This responsibility extends beyond physical hazards like broken equipment or unsafe conditions. It also includes taking reasonable steps when an employee poses a known danger to coworkers, customers, patients, or others.

Negligent hiring and negligent retention are legal theories that focus on the employer's conduct.

The New Jersey Supreme Court addressed this issue in Di Cosala v. Kay in 1982. The court explained that an employer may be held responsible when it knew, or should have known, about an employee's dangerous tendencies. The decision focused on reasonably foreseeable risk of harm. 

Negligent hiring focuses on what happened before employment began. The question is whether the employer failed to use reasonable care during hiring. A business doesn’t have to investigate every applicant. But employers have an obligation to review relevant information and avoid ignoring obvious warning signs related to the position.

Negligent retention involves a different problem. An employee may have been properly hired, but problems emerge later. Management receives complaints, or coworkers report direct threats. Sometimes, supervisors witness aggressive conduct, and HR documents repeated incidents. The employer has enough information to recognize a risk.

Liability centers on what happened after that point. An employer does not become responsible every time an employee commits misconduct. Personality conflicts are common. Employees occasionally lose their temper or make poor decisions. Negligent retention cases involve more serious conduct and stronger warning signs.

Foreseeability focuses on whether the employer had reason to recognize the risk before the harm occurred. A history of threats, racial slurs, repeated complaints, or other warning signs involving workplace violence may support the argument that the resulting harm wasn’t unexpected. 

By contrast, if an employee with no history of violence suddenly attacks someone without warning, proving negligent retention becomes far more difficult.

The phrase "dangerous coworker" covers more than workplace violence. Many of the employees we represent at Brandon J. Broderick describe a pattern of behavior that developed over time. This includes sexual harassment complaints, threats, intimidation, aggressive conduct, or repeated violations of workplace policies. 

What Warning Signs Support a Negligent Hiring Claim in New Jersey

When complaints come from different people, incidents become harder to dismiss as isolated misunderstandings. Employers don’t need to know every detail of future harassment. Courts look for evidence showing the supervisors had reason to recognize a foreseeable risk.

Common warning signs include:

• Repeated complaints about threats, intimidation, harassment, or aggressive behavior.
• Prior physical altercations involving the employee.
• Reports from customers, patients, vendors, or clients describing unsafe conduct.
• Workplace investigations that substantiate misconduct allegations.
• Documented disciplinary actions involving violence or threats.
• Evidence that supervisors personally witnessed concerning behavior.
• Police involvement, restraining orders, or criminal incidents connected to workplace safety concerns.
• Statements suggesting an employee intended to harm coworkers or others.

Documentation becomes important when it shows the employer was notified about the problem.

Information does not always come from a single source. One employee may complain to a supervisor, while another reports similar conduct to human resources. Viewed separately, those reports may seem limited. Together, they create a much clearer picture of what the employer knew. 

At some point, continuing to ignore the issue becomes difficult to justify.

Workplace violence remains a serious concern nationally. Of the 5,283 fatal workplace injuries recorded in the United States in 2023, 740 resulted from violent acts. Homicides accounted for 458 of those deaths, representing 61.9% of all workplace violence fatalities. Those figures help explain why employers are expected to respond when credible threats, repeated complaints, or other warning signs emerge. 

Federal workplace safety rules reinforce those expectations. OSHA's General Duty Clause requires employers to provide a safe workplace and address hazards that present a risk of injury or death. There is no universal OSHA workplace violence standard covering all industries. That doesn’t mean employers are free to ignore threats or warning signs once workplace violence becomes a known risk. 

Notice doesn’t require certainty or a confession. Management doesn’t need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Common warning signs often create enough information to require action.

The response matters. An employer that takes reports seriously, conducts an investigation, and follows up on concerns is in a much different position than one that ignores multiple reports. The focus turns to what a reasonable response would have looked like. 

Proving Negligent Retention and Employer Liability in New Jersey

Negligent retention claims require more than proof that an employee caused harm. Plaintiffs must connect the employer's decisions to the injury.

Courts look for several key elements. First, the employer owed a duty of reasonable care. Second, the employer knew or should have known about the employee's dangerous tendencies. Third, the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable. Finally, the employer's failure to act contributed to the harm.

Evidence strengthens the claim. Records showing that management received complaints before the incident can be especially important. When working on these cases, our legal team often encourages workers to preserve reports and witness information to help establish what the employer knew. 

Most important evidence includes:

• Internal complaints and HR reports. Written complaints show when management learned about a problem. Emails, HR submissions, witness statements, and incident reports frequently establish a timeline that becomes difficult to dispute. Multiple complaints from different employees carry significant weight. They suggest a pattern rather than a single disagreement.
• Prior disciplinary history. Records showing previous suspensions, warnings, investigations, or corrective actions help demonstrate the employer understood the risks. If discipline occurred repeatedly without meaningful follow-up, workers argue the employer recognized the danger but failed to address it.
• Supervisor knowledge and firsthand observations. Managers don’t always learn about misconduct through formal complaints. Sometimes they personally witness threatening behavior or aggressive outbursts. Judges then review what supervisors saw and what happened afterward.
• Security footage, police reports, and outside evidence. Video recordings, law enforcement records, protective orders, and other third-party documents can strengthen a case. They confirm earlier incidents and help establish that the employer possessed enough information to foresee future problems.
• Evidence showing the employer failed to act. The presence of a dangerous employee alone is not enough to establish liability. Attention shifts to the employer's response after complaints, warnings, or other concerns are reported. A pattern of delayed investigations or decisions to overlook serious misconduct may support a negligent retention claim. 

A company isn’t expected to predict exactly who will be harmed or when an incident will occur. The same principle appears in cases involving workplace violence, harassment, and other conduct that contributes to an unlawful work environment. 

This is why timing matters. Employers argue they lacked information, while workers point to a history of complaints. Documents created long before the injury became central to the case.

Many employees also wonder how negligent retention differs from workers' compensation. Workers' compensation provides benefits for workplace injuries regardless of fault. Negligent hiring and retention claims focus on employer conduct. Which legal remedies are available depends on the facts surrounding the incident and the claims involved. 

Background Checks and Employer Responsibility Under New Jersey Law

New Jersey's Opportunity to Compete Act, commonly known as the state's "ban-the-box" law, limits when employers may ask about criminal history during the hiring process. Employers cannot ask applicants about criminal records during the initial application process. Exceptions are narrow.

Reasonable hiring practices depend on the job itself. A criminal record doesn’t make someone dangerous or unqualified. Employers still have obligations to evaluate risks associated with certain positions. 

A key question is whether the employer handled the hiring process in a reasonable manner. Employers are allowed to conduct legally permitted background checks. In some cases, it includes social media screening when it is relevant to the position or workplace safety. 

Retention cases involve a different analysis because the employer already has direct experience with the employee. Management no longer relies solely on application materials or references. It has access to disciplinary records and firsthand knowledge of the employee's conduct.

New Jersey law provides a way to examine those decisions and, in appropriate cases, hold employers accountable for foreseeable harm. 

If you have questions about a negligent hiring or negligent retention claim, contact us today for a free consultation.