Compliance Hub
California led. New York, Ohio, and Texas followed. Virginia's healthcare mandate is in effect. More states are moving. This is the complete picture of where the law stands and where it is going.
— Are You Covered?
Select your industry and the states where you operate. The tool covers California, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia — the five states with the most immediate workplace violence compliance obligations. For Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Louisiana, and the broader national picture, see the healthcare compliance guide.
Your Industry
States Where You Operate
— Where Things Stand
Workplace violence prevention legislation has moved from a California-specific concern to a national compliance landscape in less than two years. California is currently the only state with an active general industry workplace violence mandate. New York extended requirements to retail employers in 2025 and to hospitals and nursing homes via A203 (signed December 2025; effective September 2026), and more than a dozen states have healthcare-specific laws already in effect. Reviewed as of May 8, 2026.
The pattern is consistent across states: healthcare mandates come first, then retail, then general industry. California's SB-553 is the most comprehensive general industry mandate in the country. New York's Retail Worker Safety Act extended the obligation to retail. Ohio, Texas, and Virginia have active healthcare mandates. The direction of travel is clear.
Federal OSHA's General Duty Clause applies in every state regardless of specific statutory mandates — an employer that has identified a workplace violence risk and taken no action is exposed to federal enforcement independent of state law. A federal healthcare-specific standard has been introduced in Congress and will continue to advance in future sessions.
For multi-state employers, the compliance obligation is not additive — it is intersecting. A California-compliant program with the right architecture can be adapted for Virginia, New York, Ohio, and Texas without rebuilding from scratch. The employers who built real programs in 2024 are in a structurally better position than those who filed templates.
— State-by-State Status
| State | Law / Bill | Industries Covered | Status | Deadline | Guide |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | SB-553 | All industries | In effect | July 1, 2024 | California Guide→ |
| New York | Retail Worker Safety Act | Retail (10+ employees) | In effect | June 2, 2025 (policy/training); Jan 1, 2027 (silent response button) | New York Guide→ |
| New York | A203 | Hospitals & nursing homes | Signed; effective Sept 2026 | Signed Dec 12, 2025; effective ~September 2026 | New York Guide→ |
| Ohio | HB 452 | Hospitals | In effect | July 9, 2025 | Ohio Guide→ |
| Texas | SB 240 | Broad healthcare | In effect | September 1, 2024 | Texas Guide→ |
| Virginia | HB 2269 / SB 1162 | Healthcare | In effect | July 1, 2025 | Virginia Guide→ |
| Virginia | HB 1919 | All employers (100+) | Vetoed | Vetoed March 24, 2025 | Virginia Guide→ |
| Illinois | SB 1435 | Hospitals | In effect | July 1, 2025 | |
| Vermont | New healthcare law | Healthcare | In effect | April 2025 | |
| Washington | HB 1162 (Ch. 303, 2025 Laws) | Healthcare | In effect | Signed May 19, 2025; effective Jan 1, 2026 | Healthcare Guide→ |
| Oregon | HB 2552 / SB 537 | Healthcare | In effect | Passed 2025; effective Jan 1, 2026 | Healthcare Guide→ |
| Massachusetts | H.4767 / S.1718 (formerly H.2655) | Healthcare | Awaiting Senate action | TBD | |
| Alaska | SB 49 | All employers | In committee | TBD | |
| Connecticut | PA 11-175 (updated 2024) | Healthcare | In effect | Effective 2011 | Healthcare Guide→ |
| Maryland | Health-General § 19-319 | Healthcare | In effect | Effective ~2014 | Healthcare Guide→ |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 144.566 | Healthcare | In effect | Effective ~2015 | Healthcare Guide→ |
| New Jersey | N.J.S.A. § 34:5A-1 et seq. | Healthcare | In effect | Effective ~2008 | Healthcare Guide→ |
| Maine | 26 M.R.S.A. § 570-A et seq. | Healthcare | In effect | Effective ~2008 | Healthcare Guide→ |
| Louisiana | La. R.S. § 40:2199.4 et seq. | Healthcare | In effect | Effective ~2014 | Healthcare Guide→ |
Table reflects laws known as of May 2026. Kestralis Group monitors state legislative developments and updates this guide as new laws are enacted or existing laws are amended. Contact us if you believe a law or amendment is missing.
— Free Resources
Each tool is the actual instrument our principals use in the corresponding engagement. Download whichever maps to the question you’re holding right now.
For HR & Compliance
For HR and compliance officers identifying which state mandates apply across an organization’s footprint and what each requires. 32 requirements across California SB-553, NY Retail Worker Safety Act, Ohio HB 452, Texas SB 240, and Virginia's healthcare mandate — mapped side by side.
For General Counsel & Risk
For general counsel and risk leadership evaluating whether the existing program will survive litigation if it’s tested. 45 questions across 10 domains — the same framework our principals use to scope pre-litigation engagements.
— Detailed Guides
The following states have active mandates with passed deadlines or near-term deadlines requiring employer action now. Each has a full compliance guide with detailed requirements, deadlines, and what a compliant program must include.
— Federal OSHA
Federal OSHA does not currently have a specific workplace violence prevention standard for general industry. A healthcare-specific standard — the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act (HR 2531, 119th Congress) — has been introduced in multiple sessions without passage. Under the current administration, a federal general industry standard is not anticipated in the near term.
What does apply, in every state and every industry regardless of specific statute, is the OSHA General Duty Clause. It requires employers to maintain a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Workplace violence is a recognized hazard. An employer that has identified a violence risk — through prior incidents, employee reports, or the nature of the work environment — and taken no meaningful preventive action is exposed to federal enforcement independent of any state law.
The practical implication: the absence of a specific state mandate is not a safe harbor. Employers in states without active workplace violence legislation are still subject to the General Duty Clause and to the tort liability framework for negligent security and workplace violence negligence. State mandates define a floor. They do not define a ceiling.
— A Sector Under Particular Pressure
The national workplace violence prevention legislative movement began in healthcare — and healthcare employers face the most immediate and widespread obligations.
As of May 8, 2026, states with active healthcare-specific workplace violence prevention laws include California, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Oregon (HB 2552 / SB 537) and Washington (HB 1162) both took effect January 1, 2026; New York’s A203 was signed December 12, 2025 and takes effect approximately September 2026. A healthcare employer operating across multiple states is almost certainly operating under multiple active mandates simultaneously.
The requirements across these laws share a common architecture — written prevention plan, risk assessment, training, incident reporting, anti-retaliation — but differ in specifics. Illinois requires panic buttons in hospitals. Ohio requires at least one de-escalation-trained employee on-site at all times in emergency and psychiatric departments. Texas requires immediate post-incident services and patient care reassignment protections. Ohio requires attestation of compliance through a state platform. A healthcare employer that builds to the most demanding standard in each state it operates in, using a configurable multi-state framework, is in a structurally better position than one building separate programs state by state.
Kestralis Group builds multi-state healthcare compliance programs as coordinated systems — a shared foundation with state-specific configurations. The work done for California does not need to be duplicated for Texas. The Ohio requirements build on what Texas already required. The program architecture scales.
— Multi-State Compliance
The most efficient path to multi-state compliance is not building separate programs for each state — it is building one program designed from the outset to be configured for each state's specific requirements.
The core architecture is consistent across every active mandate: a written, site-specific prevention plan; a functioning incident reporting system; annual training with documented completion; anti-retaliation protections; and a named responsible party. Every state adds specific requirements on top of that foundation — California adds the Violent Incident Log and four-type violence classification; Ohio adds the interdisciplinary planning team and governing body reporting; Texas adds patient reassignment protections; New York adds the silent response button for large retailers.
A program built to California's standard — the most demanding general industry mandate in the country — satisfies the foundational requirements of every other active mandate. The state-specific additions are configurations, not rebuilds.
For healthcare employers operating in multiple states, the Texas framework is the broadest starting point — eight facility types post-SB 463, committee requirement, annual governing body reporting. Layering in Ohio's continuous de-escalation-trained presence requirement requirement and attestation obligation, Virginia's healthcare documentation requirements, and California's Violent Incident Log produces a program that covers the full multi-state healthcare obligation.
Kestralis Group has built this architecture. We can assess your current posture across all states where you operate, identify the gaps, and build or update your program as a coordinated multi-state system.
— The Outlook
Several indicators point to continued expansion of workplace violence prevention legislation through 2026 and 2027.
Virginia's general industry mandate is the next likely expansion. Governor Youngkin's March 2025 veto of HB 1919 stalled the bill, and its companion HB 1620 — which would have convened a Department of Labor and Industry workgroup — was tabled in House Rules in January 2025. Governor Spanberger took office in January 2026 and has already signed HB 1489, materially expanding the healthcare reporting framework. Reintroduction of a general industry standard in the 2027 session is probable, not speculative.
Massachusetts has multiple active healthcare bills and a history of proactive employment legislation. Washington's healthcare bill is advancing. Oregon's committee bill is developing. Each represents a market that will need advisory support when the law passes — and an SEO opportunity for organizations that establish authority ahead of the deadline.
The federal healthcare standard, introduced as HR 2531, has not yet advanced in the 119th Congress and is expected to be reintroduced if it does not pass before January 2027. A future administration with a more active regulatory posture could move it quickly. When a federal healthcare standard passes, every covered employer in the country faces a compliance obligation simultaneously. The organizations with existing programs will adapt. Those without will scramble.
The national general industry standard follows the same pattern at larger scale. California is the template. The organizations that built California-compliant programs are building the foundation for national compliance.
— Next step
A 30-minute consultation with a Kestralis Group principal will tell you which states you are exposed in, what each mandate requires, and what a coordinated multi-state program looks like for your organization.
