What You Should Know About California AB 1825 – Harassment Prevention Training for Supervisors

petrides_tom

AB 1825, (California Government Code 12950.1) mandates that employers who do business in California and employ 50 or more employees provide two hours of sexual harassment prevention training to supervisors located in California at least once every two years.

Kaplan Eduneering offered a webinar: What You Should Know About California AB 1825 – Harassment Prevention Training for Supervisors. Thomas H. Petrides a Partner at K&L Gates LLP gave the presentation. These are my notes.

The law was first enacted effective January 2005, so for many employers, 2009 is another required “training year”.

In August of 2007, the California Fair Employment & Housing Commission issued Regulations regarding the required content of the training materials for AB 1825 harassment prevention training programs, including “E-learning” interactive, computer-based programs.

“Supervisors” have a broad definition. Anyone that has the authority to direct other employees may be enough to classify that person as a supervisor.

Under California law, the employer will be strictly liable for unlawful harassment of its supervisors, even if the harassment was unknown by the employer. (This is different than federal law.)

Training is only required for supervisors that are located in California. But if you don’t do the training for other similar supervisors in other states, you risk having a different standards attack in a lawsuit.

It is better to be over-inclusive in providing the training. The regulations provide that attending training does not create an inference that the employee is a supervisor.

The supervisors have to stay for two full hours, whether is in person training or remote training. If you leave 15 minutes early, you are not sufficiently trained. Tom pointed out that the training need not be two consecutive hours.

New supervisors have to received training within 6 months. However, if it’s a new employee and they received training at their prior job, you can use that. The burden is on the new employer to show that the prior training was sufficient.

See:

2 Comments