Workplace homicide killed 470 U.S. workers in 2024, up from 458 in 2023. Put it in the BLS ranking honestly and the number is still damning without being inflated: transportation incidents led at 1,937, then falls, slips and trips at 844, contact with objects and equipment at 756, violence and other injuries by persons or animals at 733 — homicide sits inside that fourth category, not above it — and exposure to harmful substances at 687. What makes homicide different is not its rank. It is a hazard that has been studied for decades, that concentrates in known industries, and that OSHA regularly cites employers for. And it is the single major fatal hazard for which there is still no OSHA standard at all. Falls have 29 CFR 1926.501. Hazardous chemicals have the Hazard Communication Standard. Machines have lockout/tagout. Violence — which kills more workers than falls do in many years across all industries — has a 55-year-old catch-all clause and a stack of voluntary guidelines. This analysis lays out what the 2024 data actually shows: a long public-health success that has quietly reversed, a burden distributed with startling inequality, and a regulatory gap that leaves every employer to write its own rulebook.
At a glance (BLS CFOI, 2024): 470 workplace homicides, up from 458 in 2023 · 64.1% of the 733 deaths from violent acts · women were 8.1% of all workplace deaths but 15.3% of homicides — homicide caused 17.4% of women's workplace deaths vs 8.5% of men's · protective-service occupations: 97 homicides (34.5% of their deaths) · zero OSHA standards governing it. Source: BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries; OSHA. In 2024 there were 470 workplace homicides in the United States, up from 458 in 2023, and there is still no OSHA standard specifically addressing workplace violence — it is enforced only under the General Duty Clause.
The success story that reversed
For most of the last three decades, workplace homicide was one of American safety's quiet triumphs. It peaked at 1,080 deaths in 1994 and fell for twenty straight years, bottoming out at 409 in 2014 — a 62% decline driven by better-lit stores, drop safes, bullet-resistant barriers, and the long national fall in violent crime. Then the trend flattened and turned. Homicides rose to 454 by 2019, and after pandemic-era swings reached 470 in 2024. The number is still far below the 1990s, but the direction has changed, and the decades of easy progress appear to be over.
U.S. workplace homicides, 1994–2024
Steep decline through 2014, then a slow reversal. Drawn at verified anchor years.
Source: BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. 1994 peak 1,080; 2014 low 409; 2019 = 454; 2024 = 470. From 1992–2019, 17,865 workers were killed in workplace homicides.
The reversal matters because the tools that produced the decline — hardening the physical environment against Type I robbery — have largely been deployed. What remains is harder: violence from people the worker must engage rather than repel, in settings where a locked door is not an option.
An unequal burden: the gender gap
The headline number hides a distribution so skewed it changes the whole picture. Women made up just 8.1% of the 5,070 workers killed on the job in 2024 — but 15.3% of the homicide victims. Turn the ratio around and it is starker still: of every woman who died at work, 17.4% were murdered, compared with 8.5% of men. Homicide is more than twice as large a share of women's workplace deaths as men's, and it ranks among the leading causes of on-the-job death for women even though far fewer women die at work overall.
Homicide as a share of workplace deaths, by sex (2024)
Bars scaled to 20%. Source: BLS CFOI 2024. Men still account for most workplace homicides in absolute terms (398), but homicide is a far larger share of the smaller number of women's deaths.
The mechanism behind much of this gap is Type IV violence — personal-relationship violence that follows a worker to a place the assailant knows they will be. Domestic violence does not stay home; the workplace is the one location where a targeted person reliably appears at a predictable time. It is also the type an employer can least address by hardening the building, and the one most dependent on culture, reporting, and response planning. When it ends in a sexual assault, the injury is a privacy concern case and the employee's name stays off the 300 Log (29 CFR 1904.29(b)(7)(ii)).
The four types — and why "violence" is really four problems
Lumping every incident into one word is why prevention so often fails. The NIOSH typology, which OSHA uses, sorts violence by the assailant's relationship to the workplace, and each type has a different profile and a different fix.
| Type | Assailant | Drives | Primary control |
|---|---|---|---|
| I — Criminal intent | No legitimate relationship (robbery) | Most homicides | Environmental hardening: cash controls, sightlines, barriers |
| II — Customer/client | Patient, client, student, inmate | Most nonfatal violence | Staffing, de-escalation, alarms, design |
| III — Worker-on-worker | Current or former employee | Escalating conflict | Threat assessment, HR, termination protocols |
| IV — Personal relationship | Domestic partner, acquaintance | Disproportionate share of women's deaths | Reporting, safety planning, access control |
Source: NIOSH/OSHA workplace-violence typology. A single "workplace violence policy" that ignores the type is a policy that fits none of them.
The nonfatal iceberg: healthcare absorbs the blows
Homicides are the visible tip. Beneath them is a vastly larger volume of nonfatal violence — being hit, kicked, bitten, or beaten badly enough to miss work — and it is concentrated in one place: healthcare and social assistance. These are Type II incidents, perpetrated by the very people the worker is there to help, in settings where the worker cannot lock the door, screen the visitor, or refuse the interaction.
Nonfatal workplace-violence injury rate vs. all private industry
Rates of violence-related injuries, relative to the private-industry average, 2014 BLS data as cited by OSHA in its December 7, 2016 request for information (81 FR 88147). The social-assistance subsector alone ran about 9.8 such injuries per 10,000 full-time workers.
This concentration is exactly why OSHA's first workplace-violence rulemaking targets healthcare and social assistance specifically. It is the sector where the hazard is most predictable, most frequent, and — critically for a legally defensible standard — most clearly abatable through staffing, design, and de-escalation. The data stream already exists: hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, and nursing care facilities with 100 or more employees send OSHA their 300 and 301 case data each year (29 CFR 1904.41(a)(2) and Appendix B to Subpart E).
The regulatory gap: a fatal hazard on a General Duty leash
Here is the anomaly at the center of the data. Every other hazard of comparable lethality has a specific standard that tells employers what to do. Violence does not.
What governs workplace violence today
- General Duty Clause, §5(a)(1). The catch-all. OSHA must prove the hazard was recognized, likely to cause serious harm, and abatable by a feasible method — a high bar it meets case by case, most successfully in healthcare.
- Voluntary guidelines. OSHA Publication 3148 (healthcare and social service) and separate late-night-retail guidance describe good programs but carry no independent penalty.
- A rule without a date. "Prevention of Workplace Violence in Healthcare and Social Assistance" (RIN 1218-AD08); Small Business Review panel concluded May 1, 2023; focused on Type II violence; listed as a long-term action, proposed rule "To Be Determined".
- State Plans out front. California's Cal/OSHA already requires a written Workplace Violence Prevention program for most employers — a preview of where federal policy is heading.
The practical consequence is that employers cannot wait for a citation to tell them what compliance looks like. Because OSHA already treats recognized violence hazards as General Duty Clause violations, the absence of a numbered standard is not an absence of obligation — it is an absence of a checklist. The employer has to build the checklist. The citation it risks is not small either: a General Duty Clause violation carries the serious maximum of $16,550 (29 CFR 1903.15(d)(3)), or up to $165,514 if willful or repeated (29 CFR 1903.15(d)(1)-(2)).
The rules that do apply to a violent incident
No standard governs the violence itself, but an incident still triggers rules already in force:
| After an incident | What the rule requires | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| A worker is killed | Report to OSHA within 8 hours | 29 CFR 1904.39(a)(1) |
| A worker is hospitalized as an inpatient | Report to OSHA within 24 hours | 29 CFR 1904.39(a)(2) |
| An injury occurs at work | Work-related if an event in the work environment caused or contributed to it | 29 CFR 1904.5(a) |
| It meets the general criteria | Recorded on the 300 Log | 29 CFR 1904.7(a) |
| The 300 Log and 301 report | Entered within 7 calendar days | 29 CFR 1904.29(b)(3) |
| The injury came from a sexual assault | A privacy concern case, without the employee's name | 29 CFR 1904.29(b)(7)(ii) |
| The worker who reports it | No discharge or discrimination | 29 CFR 1904.35(b)(1)(iv) |
| Retaliation under the Act | Section 11(c) also protects reporting | 29 CFR 1904.36 |
| A bite or blood exposure in health care | A confidential medical evaluation and follow-up made available immediately | 29 CFR 1910.1030(f)(3) |
| No clinic or hospital nearby | A person adequately trained to render first aid | 29 CFR 1910.151(b) |
| An emergency action plan, where a standard requires one | Procedures for reporting, evacuation, and accounting for employees | 29 CFR 1910.38(a), (c)(1), (2), (4) |
| Employees who want an inspection | Any employee or representative may request one | 29 CFR 1903.11(a) |
| A recognized hazard left uncontrolled | A General Duty Clause citation, up to $16,550 per serious violation | 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(3) |
What a defensible program looks like
The good news is that the "missing" standard is not really unknown — it is documented in OSHA 3148, in the healthcare rulemaking record, and in California's existing rule. A credible Workplace Violence Prevention program has five parts, and each maps to something an EHS team can build today:
- Management commitment and worker participation — a written policy, an owner, and a channel for frontline input.
- Worksite hazard analysis — walk the site and run a job hazard analysis of high-exposure tasks (cash handling, lone work, patient restraint, late-night shifts).
- Controls — engineering (barriers, lighting, alarms, exit routes), administrative (staffing, buddy systems, de-escalation training), and an emergency action plan for an active threat.
- Training — role-specific, repeated, and documented; a recurring toolbox talk keeps it live.
- Reporting and investigation — record incidents on the OSHA 301 form within 7 calendar days (29 CFR 1904.29(b)(3)), investigate every event and near miss without reprisal, and feed the findings back into the hazard analysis.
Done well, the program is both prevention and defense: it reduces the incidents that hurt workers, and it is the exact documentation that answers a General Duty Clause citation.
Build the program the standard hasn't written yet
There's no numbered rule to copy — so the burden of proof falls on your documentation. HazComFast helps you analyze the hazard, plan the response, train the crew, and record every incident, so a recognized hazard doesn't become a General Duty citation.
Prevent workplace violence without waiting for a standard
The 2024 data tells a coherent, uncomfortable story. Workplace homicide is rising again after two decades of decline; its burden falls hardest on women and on public-facing and healthcare workers; and it is the only major fatal hazard OSHA still governs without a standard. The regulatory gap is not closing on any date an employer can plan around: the healthcare rule sits among OSHA's long-term actions with no proposal scheduled, while some states act on their own. The employers who treat violence as the recognized, analyzable hazard the data shows it to be, and who document a real prevention program, are both keeping people alive and building the defense OSHA's General Duty Clause already demands.
Related: Who Dies at Work: The Demographics Behind 5,070 Deaths · US Workplace Fatalities 2024: The CFOI Analysis · The Hidden Toll: Occupational Disease Deaths · The General Duty Clause · OSHA Data & Research hub
Sources & verification (verified 2026-07-13): Fatality figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 2024 (released Feb 19, 2026): 470 workplace homicides (up from 458 in 2023), 64.1% of 733 deaths from violent acts (263 suicides); total 5,070 workplace deaths; women 413 total deaths (8.1%) and 72 homicides (15.3% of homicides; 17.4% of women's deaths); men 398 homicides (8.5% of men's 4,657 deaths); protective-service occupations 97 homicides (34.5% of their deaths). Historical series: 1994 peak 1,080; 2014 low 409; 2019 = 454; 1992–2019 total 17,865 (BLS CFOI). Nonfatal rates from OSHA/BLS: psychiatric hospitals ~64× and nursing/residential care ~11× the private-industry average; social-assistance subsector ~9.8 per 10,000 (2014 data, cited in 81 FR 88147, December 7, 2016). Rulemaking stage from the Unified Agenda (reginfo.gov, RIN 1218-AD08): Long-Term Actions, NPRM To Be Determined. Regulatory status from OSHA: no specific standard; enforcement under the General Duty Clause §5(a)(1); rulemaking "Prevention of Workplace Violence in Healthcare and Social Assistance" (RIN 1218-AD08), SBREFA panel concluded May 1, 2023; voluntary guidance OSHA Publication 3148. The four-type classification is the NIOSH/OSHA typology. Derived percentages are arithmetic on published counts. Not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many workplace homicides were there in 2024?
There were 470 workplace homicides in the United States in 2024, up from 458 in 2023, according to the BLS Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Homicides made up 64.1% of the 733 deaths from violent acts (the rest were suicides). Homicide is not itself one of the BLS major event categories — it sits inside "violence and other injuries by persons or animals", which ranked fourth in 2024 at 733, behind transportation (1,937), falls, slips and trips (844) and contact with objects and equipment (756). It remains well below the 1994 peak of 1,080 — but it has been creeping upward since the 2014 low of 409. A homicide that falls under OSHA's jurisdiction is a work-related death the employer must report within 8 hours (29 CFR 1904.39(a)(1)).
Is workplace violence covered by an OSHA standard?
No. There is no OSHA standard specifically addressing workplace violence. OSHA enforces it under the General Duty Clause — Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1) — which requires employers to furnish a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. OSHA has opened a first-ever rulemaking, 'Prevention of Workplace Violence in Healthcare and Social Assistance' (RIN 1218-AD08); its Small Business Review panel concluded May 1, 2023, and the draft framework focuses on Type II violence from patients, clients, and their visitors. The latest Unified Agenda lists it as a long-term action, with the proposed-rule date 'To Be Determined'. Until a standard is issued, violence is the only major fatal workplace hazard governed entirely by a catch-all clause and voluntary guidelines.
Why are women disproportionately affected by workplace homicide?
Women accounted for just 8.1% of all workplace deaths in 2024 (413 of 5,070) but 15.3% of homicides (72 of 470). Put another way, homicide caused 17.4% of all workplace deaths among women, versus 8.5% among men — more than double the share. A large part of the gap is Type IV violence: personal-relationship violence, including domestic violence that follows a worker to a predictable workplace. It is the reason homicide ranks among the leading causes of on-the-job death for women even though far fewer women die at work overall. An injury from a sexual assault at work is a privacy concern case, entered on the 300 Log without the employee's name (29 CFR 1904.29(b)(7)(ii)).
Which workers face the highest risk of workplace violence?
It depends on whether you mean fatal or nonfatal. Fatal violence concentrates in jobs exposed to the public and cash — retail, transportation, and protective service; protective-service occupations alone had 97 homicides in 2024, 34.5% of their fatalities. Nonfatal violence concentrates overwhelmingly in healthcare and social assistance: psychiatric hospitals had violence-related injury rates over 64 times the private-industry average, and nursing and residential care facilities about 11 times (2014 data, cited by OSHA in its December 2016 request for information). Different sectors, different mechanisms, both under the same non-existent standard. Hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, and nursing care facilities with 100 or more employees must already send OSHA their 300 and 301 case data each year (29 CFR 1904.41(a)(2)).
What are the four types of workplace violence?
The NIOSH/OSHA typology sorts violence by the assailant's relationship to the workplace. Type I (criminal intent): the assailant has no legitimate relationship — robbery and other crime, which drives most workplace homicides. Type II (customer/client): a patient, client, student, or inmate, which drives most nonfatal violence, especially in healthcare. Type III (worker-on-worker): a current or former employee. Type IV (personal relationship): someone with a relationship to the worker but not the workplace, such as a domestic partner. The type determines the prevention strategy, which is why lumping 'violence' into one bucket fails. Whatever the type, a resulting injury is judged by the same work-relatedness rule (29 CFR 1904.5(a)).
What can employers do to prevent workplace violence without a federal standard?
Treat it as a recognized hazard and build a written Workplace Violence Prevention (WVP) program — exactly what OSHA's voluntary guidelines (Publication 3148 for healthcare and social service) recommend and what State Plans like California's already require. The core elements are management commitment and worker participation, a worksite hazard analysis (including a job hazard analysis of high-exposure tasks), engineering and administrative controls, training, and incident reporting and investigation with no reprisal. Recording violent incidents (OSHA Form 301) and analyzing near misses turns anecdote into the data a program needs. Because OSHA already cites violence under the General Duty Clause, a documented program is both prevention and legal defense. Every injury that meets the general recording criteria goes on the 300 Log (29 CFR 1904.7(a)), and no worker may be punished for reporting one (29 CFR 1904.35(b)(1)(iv)).
OSHA figures and citations here come from our regulatory source-of-truth modules, last checked against the eCFR, OSHA.gov, and the Federal Register on October 5, 2026. Last reviewed October 6, 2026.
About This Article
Published by: HazComFast
Published: July 13, 2026
Last Updated: October 6, 2026
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.