Threat Assessments in the Fire Service: Balancing Safety and Fairness

At shift change, a firefighter storms out of the kitchen, furious at a colleague. “I’ll be back—and you’ll be sorry,” he threatens before slamming the door.

In another firehouse, two long-time friends who are preparing the evening meal engage in a debate over whether engine companies that apply water save more lives than ladder companies that perform rescues do. One says jokingly to the other, “You better sleep with one eye open tonight.”

Both scenarios raise the same concerns for fire department leaders: What obligation does a department have to assess potential threats in the workplace? How can leaders respond consistently without underreacting to a real danger or overreacting in a way that stigmatizes an employee for the rest of their career?

Violence in the firehouse

Concerns about workplace violence are not theoretical. Firefighters have been injured or killed by coworkers, and lawsuits have followed when departments ignored warning signs. In Los Angeles County, a tragic 2021 shooting at Fire Station 81 left two firefighters dead and a third seriously injured. Lawsuits filed afterward alleged that chiefs had been aware of the shooter’s history of threatening and harassing conduct but failed to intervene effectively. In perhaps the worst case on record, a disgruntled Jackson, MS, firefighter killed four firefighters in 1996.

A deep dive into these cases and others shows that violent incidents seldom emerge from a single outburst. What may appear to be a one-time act of violence is often part of a larger pattern of hostility or unchecked behavior that warrants intervention before it escalates.

A structured threat assessment evaluates whether a statement, behavior or pattern of conduct poses a credible risk of harm. It typically involves gathering facts, interviewing witnesses, considering context and weighing whether intervention is necessary. The goal is to identify real danger early and prevent escalation.

While threat assessments are essential for safety, they also carry risks if misused. A poorly designed or inconsistently applied policy can become a tool of retaliation rather than protection. Firefighters have reported instances where threat assessments were “weaponized”—invoked selectively against individuals who had fallen out of favor with leadership or who were otherwise seen as troublemakers. In those cases, the label of being a “threat” had little to do with actual risk and everything to do with politics, personality conflicts or bias. Once such a stigma attaches, it can shadow firefighters throughout their career, limiting opportunities for promotion or mobility.

That danger underscores why threat assessments must be evidence-based, transparent and applied consistently across the department. Leadership must guard against both extremes: ignoring genuine threats on the one hand and using the process as a disciplinary shortcut or political weapon on the other.

Legal landscape

Unlike fireground operations, the legal framework for handling workplace threats is less well defined. NFPA standards focus on violence at incident scenes. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has no regulation specific to workplace violence beyond the General Duty Clause: employers must provide a workplace “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health defines workplace violence as “violent acts (including physical assaults and threats of assaults) directed toward persons at work or on duty.” Under that definition, the examples that involve the angry firefighter and the joking friends may qualify as incidents requiring evaluation, though the outcomes may differ dramatically.

Threat assessments as policy

Every department should have a policy that addresses threatening behavior by or toward employees. At minimum, such a policy should:

• Prohibit threats of violence by employees in any form, including verbal, written or implied.
• Require officers to report threats or concerning behaviors, even if they appear minor or are brushed off as “just kidding.”
• Mandate a structured threat assessment by designated leaders when threats occur, rather than leaving decisions to the discretion—or bias—of a single chief officer.
• Establish proportional responses ranging from coaching, counseling and mediation to formal discipline, fitness-for-duty evaluations or law enforcement referral.

The policy also must recognize that not all threats are equal. Firehouse humor is legendary, and leaders need to distinguish joking remarks from credible threats. The danger lies in swinging too far either way.

OSHA and CDC guidance

While OSHA does not require annual threat assessments, its educational guidance and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations provide a framework that departments can adapt:

• Establish uniform reporting systems and ensure all reports are regularly reviewed.
• Analyze trends and rates of threats, assaults and violent incidents within the department.
• Survey employees before and after making changes to policies, staffing or worksites.

Departments also should train officers to recognize warning behaviors: escalating arguments, fixation on grievances, fascination with weapons or withdrawal from the crew. The goal is not to label someone prematurely but to identify risk factors early and intervene constructively.

The department also should have access to experts who can assist with the evaluation process.

Moving forward

Case law and lawsuits make it clear that departments must take workplace threats seriously. Workplace violence is a recognized hazard. Leaders cannot afford to dismiss threatening behavior as harmless banter—nor can they afford to overreact in a way that destroys trust and careers.

The key lies in consistency. Fire service leaders must apply policies evenly, free from favoritism or personal grudges, and document their assessments carefully. Every threat assessment should be grounded in facts, not assumptions or personalities.

Threat assessments are not about punishing jokes or overpolicing firehouse humor. They are about recognizing when the line between joking and danger has been crossed and responding in a way that protects everyone in the station while treating each firefighter fairly.

The fire service has faced too many tragedies and lawsuits to leave workplace violence unaddressed. A structured, consistent and fair approach to threat assessments is not just a legal obligation; it is part of keeping our firehouses safe.