Worker Says Coworker Threatened Them With Violence — HR Still Hasn’t Acted

A Michigan worker said a coworker’s threat left them worried about their safety at work, but the bigger concern became what happened afterward: HR allegedly had not taken action.

The worker shared the situation in a post on r/AskHR, explaining that the problem began when a coworker threatened them with violence. The post did not read like a normal workplace disagreement where two people snapped at each other and moved on. The worker described the threat as serious enough that they were afraid to keep working around the person.

That is where the situation became complicated. In a lot of workplaces, employees are told to report threats through the proper channels. They are told to tell a supervisor, contact HR, document the incident, and let the company handle it. That sounds simple until the employee has to keep showing up while the company decides what it wants to do.

According to the worker, HR had been told about the threat, but nothing had changed quickly enough to make them feel safe. The coworker was still part of the workplace, and the worker was left wondering what their options were if the company did not respond.

The worker’s question on Reddit was not only about discipline. It was about safety. If someone threatens you at work and the company does not act, are you supposed to keep going in? Can you refuse to work near that person? Should you call police? Should you wait for HR? Could leaving make your own job look abandoned?

Those questions are what made the story feel so real. Workplace threats are not only about the moment someone says something. They also affect every shift after that. The worker has to walk into the building, pass through common areas, clock in, and wonder whether the person who threatened them will be there too.

The stress can be worse when HR is quiet. Silence from management creates a strange vacuum where the employee does not know if the threat is being investigated, ignored, minimized, or handled behind the scenes. Even if HR is working on it, the person who made the complaint may feel exposed if no one tells them what protections are in place.

The worker seemed to be stuck in that exact place. They had reported a threat, but they still did not know what to do next.

The post also showed the uncomfortable difference between a workplace policy issue and a possible criminal issue. HR can suspend someone, separate employees, change schedules, investigate witnesses, and decide whether company rules were broken. But HR cannot replace law enforcement if an employee believes they were threatened with violence.

That was the line the worker was trying to understand. Was this still an internal employment matter, or had it already crossed into something that needed an outside report?

The worker did not describe a neat outcome. There was no update saying the coworker had been removed, no confirmation that HR had completed an investigation, and no sign that the worker had been given a clear safety plan.

Instead, the story stopped in the most uncomfortable part of the process: after the threat, after the report, but before the workplace had done enough to make the employee feel protected.

Commenters Said a Threat at Work Should Not Stay Only With HR

Commenters were clear that the worker did not have to treat HR as the only option. Several people said that if the coworker made a real threat of violence, the worker could contact police and make a report.

The advice was not framed as revenge or workplace drama. It was framed as documentation. A police report could create a record outside the company, especially if the coworker escalated or if the employer later claimed the situation was not serious.

Other commenters said the worker should keep every communication with HR in writing. If they had reported the threat verbally, commenters suggested sending a follow-up email confirming what happened, when it happened, who witnessed it, and what safety steps the worker was requesting.

That written follow-up mattered because HR conversations can disappear into memory. An email creates a timestamp. It also forces the company to see the complaint clearly: an employee reported a threat of violence and asked what would be done to keep them safe.

Several commenters told the worker to ask specific questions instead of waiting for vague reassurance. Would the coworker be suspended during the investigation? Would schedules be changed? Would the worker be required to work near them? Would security be notified? Would management walk the worker to their car? Would the coworker be told not to contact them?

Others said the worker should not assume HR’s delay meant nothing was happening, because investigations can take time. But they also said the company should still take immediate safety precautions while it investigates. Waiting to decide discipline is one thing. Leaving an employee next to someone who allegedly threatened them is another.

Some commenters also brought up workplace safety laws and internal escalation. Depending on the employer, the worker might be able to contact a higher HR representative, ethics hotline, union representative, corporate safety office, or state labor agency. The exact path would depend on the workplace, but the general advice was the same: do not let the complaint die with one person who is slow to respond.

The worker’s situation did not have an easy ending in the thread. It was not a story where HR swooped in, removed the coworker, and fixed everything by lunch. It was a story about the gap between reporting danger and actually feeling safe again.

That gap can be miserable. Every unanswered email feels heavier. Every shift feels riskier. Every time the coworker is nearby, the employee has to wonder whether management understands how serious the threat felt.

Commenters did not tell the worker to ignore that feeling. They told them to build a record, report the threat outside the company if needed, and press HR for written answers.

The strongest message was that workplace violence concerns should not be handled like ordinary office conflict. A personality clash can go through coaching, mediation, or supervisor conversations. A threat of violence needs a safety plan.

For the worker, the next move was not about being dramatic. It was about making sure the threat existed somewhere official — in HR records, police records if they chose to call, and written communication the company could not pretend it never received.

Because if the coworker made another threat or the situation escalated, the worker needed to be able to show they had warned the company and asked for protection before something worse happened.