OAL Requests Changes to Final AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Training Regs

Today, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) requested changes to the AB 1825 regulations adopted by California’s Fair Employment & Housing Commission (FEHC) on November 14, 2006.  A letter detailing the OAL’s change requests will be public next week.  I will of course post the details to this blog, and further information will be available at www.elt-inc.com. 

So the obvious question on everyone’s minds – Are substantial changes being requested to these laboriously vetted regs?

The short and simple answer is no.

According to the FEHC, which received a courtesy call from the OAL prior to today’s public announcement, the change requests are focused on refining definitions as they relate to subject matter expertise.  

The current regs require that “Subject Matter Experts” who provide content for training programs, and who may actually conduct live training programs, have"legal education coupled with practical experience, or substantial practical experience in training in harassment, discrimination and retaliation prevention."  (More details on the current sexual harassment training regulations.) The OAL wants the definition of who is a “Subject Matter Expert” to be even clearer.  That means we will be getting more detail about two components – what specifically qualifies as “legal education” (e.g. a JD?  A certain number of years in legal practice?), and what specifically is required to have “substantial practical experience.” (e.g. a certain number of years of training experience?)

Over the next several weeks, the FEHC will be working diligently with the OAL to refine the Subject Matter Expertise definitions, and adopt new final regulations.  The regulations will be effective some time in the spring of 2007.

Overall, this is a positive development. It will further curb the growing “cottage industry” of self proclaimed harassment training specialists who are devoid of true expertise.  

The substance of the regs is not changing, so employers who are underway in planning and deploying their 2007 training can simply stay the course and proceed with confidence.

Where employers need to be even more careful, however, is erring on the side of caution when it comes to scrutinizing the expertise of their training resources – whether internal or external.  The more detailed regs are likely to be even more specific and stringent about the level of qualification and experience required to either conduct live training programs, or to build e-learning programs.  As HR, legal, ethics and training professionals, you should be asking even tougher questions about the true subject matter expertise of your training provider.

While the FEHC and the OAL sort out this last minor detail with the AB 1825 regs, let common sense prevail.  Just ask yourself the following questions: “Would I be comfortable with the developer of my online training program, or my live trainer, being cross examined in court about actual credentials and practical experience.”  If you hesitate in answering that question, you may need to rethink your AB 1825 strategy.  

Some quick practical suggestions:

• Avoid “Train the Trainer” programs where you rely on a single workshop to provide expertise to in-house trainers.  Expertise cannot be created in a few short hours.
• With online training programs, ask to see detailed information about the background and credentials of course developers. (Hopefully, it’s more than 1 or 2 people.) Then ask for certifications or warranties about the actual involvement of these people in creating and updating an e-learning program.
• With live training programs, carefully review the background and practical experience of your presenter.  Can s/he truly answer questions from the audience vs. being reliant on a course outline and script?

At the end of the day, you need real experts handling your sexual harassment training.

Tags: 1825, AB, AB 1825 & California Sexual Harassment Training, expert, FEHC, harassment, matter, sexual, subject, training,