Companies Get Ready: California's New Harassment Training Requirements Take Effect
In-house lawyers whose companies have California employees may want to start planning newly required sexual harassment trainings soon.
January 07, 2019 at 01:01 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Companies with more than five employees have less than a year to provide interactive sexual harassment training to all California-based workers, according to the state's newly implemented requirements.
A series of new sexual harassment-related laws went into effect in California for 2019. Lawyers told Corporate Counsel that the most time-intensive change for in-house counsel will likely be the implementation of broader, more in-depth harassment training.
“The law that is going to have the probably greatest immediate impact in terms of company compliance concerns is the added requirement of training for nonsupervisory employees by 2020,” said Adam Karr, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers.
By the end of 2019, SB 1343 requires employers in California provide two hours of sexual harassment training to supervisors and one hour of training to non-supervisor employees. The training must be provided within six months of hiring and repeated every two years.
Prior to 2019, California law only required training for supervisors.
Dawn Knepper, an Irvine, California-based shareholder at Buchalter, said providing training to all employees may increase bystander intervention. Susan Groff, a principal in Jackson Lewis' Los Angeles office, said such training also helps employees know their rights when it comes to harassment at work.
“It's important for everyone to go through training so you learn, even as a bystander or an observer of inappropriate behavior that you, too, have an obligation to report it and what your alternative means are in going ahead and doing that,” Knepper said. “That's part of the reason I always stress to my clients the importance of offering the training to everyone.”
Companies could have all employees, including supervisors, attend the first hour of training, and then conduct a second hour of training with only supervisors. Knepper said this could be an efficient way to run training. But Groff noted it's important that non-supervisor employees are as comfortable opening up in a combined training as they would be without supervisors present.
The new law doesn't just increase the employee groups trained. It also expands the number of companies required to train. Previously, only companies with 50 or more employees were required to conduct harassment training. Now, that number's been lowered to five employees.
Knepper said smaller companies may not have in-house counsel or HR, and therefore might not know the extent of California's new requirements. And the new law impacts companies outside of California with employees in the state, Groff said.
“It's just five or more [employees] period. Even before, when it was 50, if you had 50 nationally but just one in California, you still had to provide the anti-harassment training to your managers,” Groff said. “So when you're looking at the threshold … it's really total nationally.”
Smaller companies that lack the financial resources to develop a training of their own can use online, compliant training being developed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. But Groff said companies may want to start developing their own training, as she said it's ”not certain” when DFEH's will be made available. Good training should include interactive sessions and provide hypothetical scenarios.
“It's probably a good idea to be planning now rather than waiting on when that state online training will become available, especially if you have a sizable employee population in California,” Groff said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllScammers Target Lawyers Across Country With Fake Court Notices
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250