AB 1825 Hits the Road -- California's Sexual Harassment Training Standards Impact the Nation

In the last 24 months, the law of training has gone through a major overhaul. For years, employers relied only on their best judgment to determine if homegrown discrimination and harassment training programs were good enough to stand up to scrutiny from the courts or the EEOC. It was virtually impossible to find case law or statutory guidance that really detailed specific training expectations. 

Today, employers across the country can look to California’s AB 1825. California was the first state to provide employers with real guidance about what constitutes effective EEO and harassment training.  In essence, it has demanded robust legal content and excellent instructional design. Shaped by experts in the field of employment law and training (such as ELT and Littler Mendelson who assisted the state of California in drafting AB 1825’s regulations), the law sets national expectations.

A good indication of AB 1825’s national impact?  Recent EEOC consent decrees, which detail discrimination and harassment training mandates.

Just last week, the EEOC settled a lawsuit against Hampton Inn (Hagerstown, MD).  Similar to the Mother’s Work settlement from just a few weeks ago, it involved a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit. An employee sued Hampton Inn alleging that the hotel manager withdrew an offer of employment after realizing she was about four months pregnant. Hampton Inn settled for $45,000.

In keeping with the California training trend, the consent decree mandates training for all employees -- two hours for managers and one hour for employees -- both to have a special focus on sex and pregnancy discrimination.  The two hour requirement is not coincidental – it is the training length standard set by AB 1825. 

While many employers outside of California balk at 2 full hours dedicated to harassment prevention education, there is a clear trend of court and EEOC ordered training requiring lengthy programs.  The big picture result? A domino effect in terms of the general expectation placed upon employers.  I personally see more and more clients committing to the 2-hour training standard for supervisors outside of California.  Aside from realizing that the AB 1825 standards are likely to impact them in the event of future litigation, there is also a commitment to providing a single, consistent training program across the organization.  It is too cumbersome, and frankly, too risky, to provide a robust 2-hour program in California, and a “pared down” program in other states.  How do you explain the difference to employees – or to a jury?

As I continue to monitor EEOC consent decrees, jury verdicts, and legislative developments across the country, it is clear that the effects of California’s AB 1825 will be widespread. Sarah Reyes, author of California’s training law, has also commented repeatedly that legislators in several other states have contacted her for assistance in crafting similar laws.

Employers located outside California should take a long and hard look at California’s training requirements. Even if these standards have yet to be adopted by your state, they are likely to impact your organization. Whether you receive a charge of discrimination, or are sued in court, it is highly likely that the AB 1825 standards will impact how your case is evaluated, and possibly resolved. 

Implementing an AB 1825 compliant program today will save your organization time and money in the long run.

Tags: 1825, AB, AB 1825 & California Sexual Harassment Training, California, discrimination, harassment, sexual, training,