AB 1825 Regulations
AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Training California Fair Employment and Housing Commission
Effective August 17, 2007
California Harassment Training Requirements
California is one of three U.S. states that set the standard for sexual harassment training and unlawful harassment prevention. California state law AB1825, under the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission, mandates all organizations with 50 or more employees provide sexual harassment training to all supervisors. AB1825 first became effective August 17, 2007, and will result in serious consequences if organizations don’t comply with California harassment training requirements.
1. Frequency of Sexual Harassment Training: An employer must provide two hours of sexual harassment training, in the content specified in section 7288.0, subdivision (c), once every two years. They may use either of the following methods, or a combination of the two methods to track compliance with AB1825:
A. “Individual” Tracking: An organization may track its AB1825 training for each supervisory employee, measured two years from the date of completion of the last training of the specific supervisor.
B. “Training year” Tracking: An organization may designate a “training year” where all supervisory employees will be trained, and thereafter must retrain all supervisors by the end of the next “training year”, two years after. (For example, supervisors trained in training year 2005 must be retrained in 2007.) If sexual harassment training falls on a different year for newly hired or promoted supervisors who receive training within six months of assuming their supervisory position, the employer can include the individual in the next group training, even if it’s less than two years later. An employer should never extend the training year for the new supervisors beyond the initial two year training mark.
2. Documentation of Training: Organizations must keep documentation of the sexual harassment training provided to employees to keep track of compliance. This information must include: name of trained employee, the date of training, the type of training, and the name of the training provider. Records must be kept for a minimum of two years.
3. Training at New Businesses: Businesses must provide training to all supervisory personnel within six months of their establishment and thereafter every two years. Businesses that expand to 50 employees and/or contractors must provide training to supervisors within six months of their eligibility and thereafter every two years, due to California harassment training requirements.
4. Training for New Supervisors: New supervisors must receive sexual harassment training within six months of assuming their supervisory position and thereafter once every two years. This can be measured using the training year, or individual tracking method.
5. Duplicate Training: A supervisor who has already received training in compliance with AB1825 within the prior two years from a current, prior, alternate or joint employer is only required to read and to acknowledge receipt of the organizations’ anti-harassment policy within six months of assuming the new supervisory position, or within six months of the employer’s eligibility. The specific supervisors should otherwise be put on a two year tracking schedule based on the supervisor’s last training. The burden of establishing if the prior training was legally compliant is on the current employer.
6. Duration of Training: While California harassment training requirements call for at least two hours of sexual harassment training, it doesn’t need to be completed in two consecutive hours. The minimum duration of a training segment shall be no less than an hour for classroom training and webinars. E-learning courses (such as Workplace Answers, an EVERFI Company) may include bookmarking features which allow a supervisor to pause their individual training so long as the actual e-learning program is two hours.
For more information on California harassment training requirements visit The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing website.
AB1825 Critical Legal Cases
Miller v. Department of Correction, 36 Cal. 4th 446, 115 P.3d 77 (July 18, 2005) – California’s Supreme Court unanimously decided that favoritism shown to an employee due to a romantic relationship with a supervisor may create a hostile work environment that can result in unlawful harassment of other employees. The court found the basis for potential sexual harassment liability, even when no direct offensive conduct is aimed at other employees
Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028, 116 P.3d 1123 (August 11, 2005)- California’s high court decided that an employee who refuses to follow a supervisor’s order, because the employee “reasonably believes” the order is discriminatory (even if it is not) may claim retaliation for a later adverse employment action that “materially” affects conditions of employment. This remains standing, even if the objecting employee doesn’t explicitly tell their supervisor that they believe the order is discriminatory.
Both of these landmark cases paved the way for California harassment training requirements under state law AB1825.