Get Four
Free Issues

Subscribe to BW
Customer Service


Full Table of Contents
Cover Story
International Cover Story
Up Front
Readers Report
Corrections & Clarifications
Technology & You
Media Centric
The Barker Portfolio
Business Outlook
News: Analysis & Commentary



In Biz This Week
Washington Outlook
Asian Business
European Business
Latin America
International Outlook
Workplace
Marketing
Science & Technology
Developments to Watch
The Corporation
Information Technology
Finance
People
Inside Wall Street
Ideas -- Books
Ideas -- Viewpoint
Figures Of The Week
Editorials


INTERNATIONAL EDITIONS
International -- Readers Report
International -- Int'l Figures of the Week
International -- Editorials




JULY 25, 2005
NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
Back to Main Story

Be Prepared -- Or Get Sued

How prepared are U.S. companies for a terrorist attack? Most experts would say not well enough. Now corporate managers can add a new worry: legal liability. Thanks to little-known government guidelines, if disaster strikes, companies could find themselves fending off huge liability claims even as they struggle to get operations back on track. For smaller companies that ignore dangers, the litigation could prove especially onerous. "Your only defense at that point is bankruptcy," warns employer law expert Garry G. Mathiason of San Francisco law firm Littler Mendelson.


Odds are that few execs beyond security chiefs at big outfits know about the guidelines. A collection of crisis management pointers first assembled 10 years ago by the nonprofit National Fire Protection Assn., the 46-page set of guidelines was dusted off in 2004 by the 9/11 Commission. The commission urged that the recommendations "should define the standard of care owed by a company to its employees and the public for legal purposes." More recently, Congress pressed the Homeland Security Dept. to promote the recommendations as well. The agency since then has been urging such preparedness with public-interest advertising and discussion on such Web sites as www.ready.gov.

The guidelines are hardly burdensome. Companies must anticipate problems, update response plans, and train their staffs. But many may not be doing enough, says Mathiason. And although the standard is voluntary, experts warn that if a plaintiff's lawyer convinced a jury that a company's preparations fell short, it could be vulnerable to litigation after a disaster. "I would not like to be in a defendant's shoes in that case," says Aaron D. Twerski, dean of Hofstra University School of Law.

Moreover, some courts have suggested that once-unthinkable threats must now be planned for. Four years after a 1999 shooting at a Jewish summer camp in California, an appellate court ruled that the camp was not liable but also warned that events such as September 11 "have instilled public fear of criminal acts never before imagined." And, while litigation is still pending over the New York attacks, Federal Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in late 2003 found that the plane hijackings were "within the class of foreseeable hazards."

Truth is, complying with the standard is manageable. Companies need to sketch out what to do if a disaster befalls a plant or office. Then they must answer questions such as: How would they evacuate or protect their people? Who staffs the internal response teams? What are the emergency contacts? What communications plans are in effect? Are supplies and shelter available? And do staffers practice responses to disasters regularly?

Soon after September 11, plenty of companies, especially big or particularly vulnerable ones and those that do business with the government, fashioned detailed response plans. Still others have long kept them handy to comply with Occupational Safety & Health Administration demands or other safety requirements. So long as they keep their plans current and their staffs updated, they're probably complying with the Homeland Security recommendations.

For those that have done little or gotten lax about updating plans, however, watch out. The last thing a company would need after a terrorist attack would be a bunch of lawsuits and an unsympathetic judge. But because of the little-noticed section of the September 11 report, that's exactly what could happen.



By Joseph Weber in Chicago
 BW MALL   SPONSORED LINKS
Buy a link now!

Get BusinessWeek directly on your desktop with our RSS feeds.XML

Add BusinessWeek news to your Web site with our headline feed.

Click to buy an e-print or reprint of a BusinessWeek or BusinessWeek Online story or video.

To subscribe online to BusinessWeek magazine, please click here.

Learn more, go to the BusinessWeekOnline home page

Back to Top



TODAY'S MOST POPULAR STORIES

  1. What Dubai Means for Emerging Markets
  2. In Hunt for Students, Business Schools Go Global
  3. Now Hiring: Contract Workers?
  4. India's Economy Shows Surprising Growth
  5. Online Retailers: An Early Holiday Peak?

Get Free RSS Feed >>
  MARKET INFO
DJIA 10344.84 +34.92
S&P 500 1095.63 +8.36
Nasdaq 2144.6 +6.16

Portfolio Service Update

Stock Lookup

Enter name or ticker



Media Kit | Special Sections | MarketPlace | Knowledge Centers
McGraw-Hill Cos.