Hawaii House Bill HCR100

Hawaii 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/7/25
• Refer: 3/14/25
• Report Pass: 3/28/25
• Refer: 3/28/25
• Report Pass: 4/3/25
• Refer: 4/4/25
• Refer: 4/11/25

Caption

Requesting The State Of Hawaii To Require That Any Individual Or Group That Administers The Mandatory Harassment And Discrimination Training To Employees Demonstrate Adequate Competency In Lgbtq+ (lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, And More Identities) Identity And Culturally Specific Gender Identity Relevant To Hawaii.

Impact

The anticipated impact of H.C.R. 100 extends to the workplace environment for state employees and, by extension, the communities they interact with. By promoting a more informed and culturally aware workforce, the bill seeks to foster an inclusive atmosphere where LGBTQ+ individuals feel respected and valued. This initiative is particularly relevant in Hawaii, where there is a notable percentage of residents identifying as part of the LGBTQ+ community. Enhanced training would not only help mitigate workplace discrimination but also serve to attract talent from diverse backgrounds, improving overall workforce diversity.

Summary

H.C.R. 100 is a House Concurrent Resolution presented to the Thirty-third Legislature of the State of Hawaii in 2025. The bill requests the State of Hawaii to mandate that any individual or group administering mandatory harassment and discrimination training to employees demonstrate adequate competency in LGBTQ+ identities. This includes a culturally specific understanding relevant to Hawaii, emphasizing the need for training to encompass a wide range of gender identities and cultural contexts. The resolution aims to improve the quality of training around sensitive issues of harassment and discrimination in the workplace by ensuring that trainers have relevant experience and knowledge.

Contention

Although the bill is largely favorable for promoting an inclusive work environment, points of contention may arise around the implementation of such training. Critics might question the burdens placed on training providers, as well as the qualifications necessary to demonstrate adequate competency in LGBTQ+ identities. There is a delicate balance between fostering inclusivity and ensuring trainer qualifications do not become overly restrictive, which could limit the pool of available trainers, further complicating the state’s efforts to provide comprehensive harassment and discrimination training.