AB 1825 Webcast with Sarah Reyes Draws 1,800 Participants - Many Employers Are Training Beyond California

Today, ELT and Sarah Reyes, Author of AB 1825, hosted a webcast for more than 1,800 participants on the new draft AB 1825 regulations. The turnout underscored the demand for clear facts and guidelines about California’s mandatory sexual harassment training law. 

Over the past 18 months, I have been saddened by the amount of misinformation being hurled at employers – everything from the contention that the law only permits live training (completely false, and largely promoted by live training vendors) to the absurd suggestion that 1825 does not allow training to address other forms of harassment, like race, disability and age (how could the California Legislature ever have intended this result??). 

Real facts about AB 1825 on the AB 1825 webcast PowerPoint.

During the interactive Q&A section of the event, more than half of the participants indicated that their organizations are training enterprise-wide – not just in California. While AB 1825 has placed renewed focus on harassment training efforts, the reasons for the expanded training are clear. Here’s a quick primer on the legal landscape:

• Maine mandated sexual harassment training in 1991; Connecticut in 1993. Contrary to popular belief, California is not the first state to pass a mandatory training statute. It is the first state to make the mandatory training obligation ongoing (every two years.)

• Under the landmark decisions Faragher and Ellerth, the US Supreme Court has strongly promoted mandatory harassment training for all employees (not just supervisors) since 1998.  Training helps to establish an “affirmative defense.”  The USSC standard also promotes “periodic” training, which, given AB 1825, most people are now accepting means every 2 years.

• Numerous state courts have followed the Faragher and Ellerth standard, promoting training as a way to establish defenses to harassment and discrimination claims. New Jersey is a good, fairly recent example. (New Jersey harassment defense article)

• The EEOC has pushed harassment training since 1999. (EEOC harassment guidelines)  The same year, the USSC took it a step further, and in Kolstad, recognized that harassment is just one form of discrimination. According to Kolstad, all supervisors should receive training on general Title VII principals, including discrimination in hiring, performance management and terminations.

• Training has shown a tangible ROI in terms of preventing claims, and reducing costs for employers. (Training ROI analysis report)

At ELT, we are seeing that the California mandate has become the “arrow-head” for the broad scale adoption of harassment training across the enterprise. We have many clients that started with “California only” training in 2005, and have since expanded to all employees in 2006. They are applying the CA standards to all of their harassment training (in terms of length, content, presentation format).

So while California may not be the first state to truly mandate harassment training, it has certainly tipped the balance in favor of enterprise-wide, mandatory training. 

And if you don’t feel like following California, chances are, you may have to anyway somewhere down the road. According to Sarah Reyes, she continues to be contacted by state legislators seeking her assistance in promoting AB 1825-like legislation in other states.

Better to stay ahead of the curve – especially when you know what’s coming.

Tags: AB 1825, AB1825, Federal Harassment Training, harassment training, sexual harassment training,