Employers: sexual harassment training: requirements.
The enactment of SB 778 presents significant changes to existing employment law under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which previously required employers to ensure sexual harassment training by January 1, 2020. With the new deadlines extended to January 1, 2021, the bill also makes provisions for new employees and the ongoing requirements every two years. This initiative underscores a shift in employer responsibilities towards proactively addressing and mitigating workplace harassment, aiming to create safer environments for all employees.
Senate Bill 778 aims to amend the California Government Code by modifying the training requirements related to sexual harassment for employees and employers. Under this legislation, any employer with five or more employees is mandated to provide two hours of classroom or interactive training regarding sexual harassment for supervisory employees and one hour for nonsupervisory employees. The training must be completed within six months of hiring or assuming a supervisory role, and it must be refreshed once every two years thereafter. This bill is designed to enhance workplace safety and accountability in California employers regarding sexual harassment issues.
The sentiment surrounding SB 778 appears to be predominantly positive, with supporters arguing that enhanced training requirements will empower employees and supervisors to recognize and prevent harassment in the workplace. There is a collective acknowledgment that proper training is crucial in fostering a respectful workplace culture. However, there are some concerns about the potential burden on smaller businesses in terms of compliance costs and logistics associated with training every employee within the prescribed time frames.
A point of contention regarding SB 778 is highlighted through its urgency statute declaration, which allows the bill to take immediate effect to ensure maximum compliance with the new training requirements. Critics argue that while the urgency is well intended—aimed at preserving public peace, health, and safety—such rapid implementation may leave some employers unprepared to effectively meet the new training mandates. Additionally, ambiguity around the definition of 'abusive conduct' as included in the training adds another layer of complexity for employers, who may struggle with compliance and the need for clarity in legislative standards.