The employer has strongly criticized the position taken by this Court regarding what sort of behavior triggers an employer's duty to investigate and take corrective action. Life in the modern workplace, regrettably, can often result in co-worker tension. It is not uncommon for such tensions to arise even in an appellate court. If these terms, as the majority opinion appears to dictate, are completely banned from the West Virginia workplace, it is entirely possible that workers will resort to non-verbal forms of expressing their frustrations, fears, anxieties, and aggressions. Workplace violence, unfortunately, is a fact of life in contemporary society.
Women disproportionately suffer from such workplace violence.
Frequently, the perpetrators of workplace violence are those employees who kept their frustrations, fears, anxieties, and aggressions just below the surface, eventually erupting in a violent frenzy. Although Fluharty threatened violence and used inappropriate language to deal with his frustrations regarding Voyle's constant criticisms of his work, Fluharty never acted upon such threats. If Fluharty had worked in an environment where he knew that any verbal expression of such frustrations might result in his discharge, FSS firmly believes that it would have been more likely that Fluharty may have expressed those frustrations in physical terms. Incredibly, the employer seriously argues in the foregoing quoted passages that the results of the majority opinion will be more workplace physical violence against women . I resoundingly disagree with the employer's argument.