Harry Pratt Shooting and Preventive Measures

Violence in the Workplace: The Harry Pratt Co. Warehouse Shooting

Introduction

In 2019, Gary Martin opened fire at the Harry Pratt Co. Warehouse where he had just been informed of his termination for failing to follow safety protocol. Martin had had a feeling that he was about to be fired, which is why he brought his gun into the workplace that day. He promised to co-workers that if he lost his job he would kill everyone at the place. Indeed, when taken into the manager’s office and told he was let go, he shot everyone in the room and then went to look for other co-workers with whom he wanted to settle a “score” of sorts (ABC 7, 2019). All told, Martin killed five and injured several more. He himself died on the scene just hours after engaging police with open fire.

Basic Issues

The basic issues involved in the case of the Harry Pratt Co. Warehouse shooting were that the employ Gary Martin had a history of violence, had been incarcerated, and should not have been able to possess a gun due to federal law. He had a petty grievance with management over workplace safety and he was likely to be terminated for not wearing safety goggles. He also had a workplace grievance with a co-worker. The warehouse was not designed to prevent incidents of violence such as workplace shooting, and had no administrative or engineering controls in place to deal with such a safety issue.

The relationship among these issues is that Martin was a worker with a history of violence, and he should have been a red flag hire; co-workers were obviously bothered by him, as they had reported on him for not following safety protocol. He in turn was frustrated with co-workers, and having no moral compass or self-restraint he turned to violence to get revenge on the “system” and those who annoyed him once it became apparent to management that he could not be trusted to continue with his employment there.

Possible Administrative Controls for Prevention

According to Chapter 13 (n.d.), “Administrative controls consist of management practices that can reduce the risk of workplace violence. These practices include establishing policies, conducting background checks, and providing training for employees” (p. 292). Administrative controls that management could have implemented to prevent this situation, therefore, include a background check of Martin before hiring him: this would have shown that he had a history of violence and might not be a positive influence in the workplace; and a gun policy that would have prohibited employees from having guns anywhere on the premises including in their cars in the parking lot. Since it was known that Martin had a gun in his car when at work, this would have been grounds from preventing his entry into the workplace. Whether training would have helped to prevent the situation is unknown. It is likely the case that some training was already provided in terms of workplace safety, but Martin being impervious to correction was determined not to follow the rules.

To what extent active shooter training might have helped spare some lives is also unclear. As Wallace (2020) points out, training of this sort can help to increase a sense of self-efficacy among workers—but in the case of the Harry Pratt shooting, Martin opened fire first on his supervisors without warning—so no training would have saved them. Secondly, there was little opportunity for anyone to do anything once it became apparent what was happening: those who could flee did so, and Martin began hunting for the one co-worker with whom he had long had a grievance.

However, it did not appear that any active shooter training or preparation had been given to employees. Had some strategy for such a situation been implemented, fewer lives might have been lost, as Martin would have had access to fewer victims. More people would have escaped. Thus, it is helpful to consider that management should have a training program for what employees can do in case an active shooter situation does emerge.

Still, the main administrative controls for prevention that would have made the biggest difference in this case would have been for the management staff to conduct a thorough background check on Martin; the other control that might have helped would have been for a no-guns-on-site policy, which would have made it possible for co-workers to report on Martin’s gun in his car far early. This might have helped prevent the shooting that occurred later.

At the same time, a huge loophole on the part of law enforcement was the fact that Martin was able to obtain a gun in the first place: he should have been prohibited from obtaining one, but he managed to get into the Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card system (FOIC) and this allowed him to make a purchase. Later it came to the attention of authorities that he should not be in FOIC, but police never pursued the matter (CBS, 2022). It stands to reason, therefore, that background checks should be conducted in coordination with law enforcement to make sure no one in the system is falling through the cracks.

Possible Engineering Controls for Prevention

As Chapter 13 (n.d.) points out, “Engineering controls relating to the prevention of workplace violence serve the same purpose as engineering controls relating to other hazards. They either remove the hazard, or they create a barrier between it and employees” (p. 296). In the case of the Harry Pratt Co. Warehouse shooting, there was no barrier between violence and the employees. Martin was able to bring a gun into the workplace without any difficulty. A gun detector at the entrance would have alerted employees to the danger represented by Martin when he brought his weapon to work. A single security officer could have been employed to man the check-point and thus Martin would not have been able to bring his gun to the meeting at which he was told he was terminated. This would have at the very least obliged Martin to return to his car—and then the security guard could have been on alert for any suspicious activity—such as Martin retrieving something from his car and then heading back to the warehouse. Doors could have been locked to prevent his entry, police could have been called, and lives could have been saved. A gun detector check-point would have denied the hazard from surprisingly appearing within the workplace.

Another engineering control that might have helped to prevent the shooting would have been for improved surveillance. A surveillance team might have noticed Martin retrieving a gun from his car or from his locker prior to going to the meeting. The surveillance team then could have alerted management, and management could have called off the meeting, sensing that they would be putting themselves in a dangerous situation. They could have called police and removed personnel from Martin’s surroundings, or had him wait in an isolated room behind a locked door until police arrived.

Immediate Outcome of the Case

One important outcome of the case in the immediate aftermath was that police discovered through their investigation that Martin had made prior threats of shooting up the workplace before he was fired. One employee said it was a common occurrence to hear Martin talk that way and that because it happened so often he never took it as meaningful and never reported it (Grinberg, 2019). What this shows, however, is that there was reason to believe Martin was a threat to those around him: just because he did not follow through on threats initially did not mean those threats were not real. The obvious indication for Harry Pratt, therefore, was that it needed to do more to train employees on how to recognize threats and how to report them.

The fact that Martin was able to talk freely of engaging in a violent shooting spree at his place of employment and still maintain his employment shows that something was very wrong at Harry Pratt in terms of administrative controls. The administration should have had a policy in place for how employees should report on hostile, aggressive, or violent language used by other employees. If such talk was heard, even if it was not believed to be an immediate threat, the company should have insisted that it be reported and that a policy be in place for how management should address the matter. Martin had been given too many passes, both from managers and from co-workers, and finally he put his plan into motion.

Long-Term Impact/Outcome of the Case

The long-term impact of the case is that it led to law enforcement taking more seriously the issue of closing the FOIC loopholes that enabled Martin to obtain a firearm in the first place. This means it took a workplace shooting for law enforcement to realize the gravity and seriousness of its job (CBS, 2022). As unfortunate as that may be, the fact that loopholes have begun to be closed shows that at least some administrative progress has been made.