Hindelang et al.'s lifestyle theory of personal victimization argues that some individuals develop lifestyles that are more conducive to victimization than others. Empirical data were used to establish a relationship between such lifestyle characteristics as age, marital status, and gender and the risk of victimization. Although lifestyle theory establishes a link between demographic characteristics and victimization, it could also be theorized that businesses have "lifestyles" that make them more or less likely to become victims of crime. Some of the organizational lifestyles that may create contexts that catalyze workplace violence are the location of the business (high crime area); business type/service offered (retail and service businesses have higher rates of abuse and violence); victimization by gender of staff; and victimization by ethnicity of staff. A criticism of the lifestyle theory of personal victimization is that it fails to address how or why certain types of people are victims of crime. The theory only establishes correlations between empirical data and lifestyle characteristics. It does not consider how victims and offenders converge in time and space. Routine activity theory, as developed by Cohen and Felson, takes these factors into account. This theory hypothesizes that for a direct contact predatory violation to occur, there must be a convergence in time and space of an offender, suitable target, and an absence of capable guardianship. Regarding workplace violence, routine activities theory would hypothesize that some businesses, with lifestyles that promote abuse/violence, will have a convergence of victims/offenders in time and space. This chapter presents case studies that show abuse and violence as connected to businesses that refuse to serve those under age and those that occasion complaints over pricing. The context, trigger, and process events that may produce abuse and violence are identified under such conditions. 7 tables and 18 notes