California DFEH Updates FAQ on Sexual Harassment Prevention Training in Light of New Deadline to Comply
Time 2 Minute Read
California DFEH Updates FAQ on Sexual Harassment Prevention Training in Light of New Deadline to Comply

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) recently updated its Sexual Harassment Prevention Training FAQ guidance to address some of the questions surrounding SB 1343, which requires employers with five or more employees to provide classroom or “other interactive training” for all California employees (not just supervisors) every two years. SB 1343 was initially set to go into effect on January 1, 2020. But in 2019, Governor Newsom signed two amendments to SB 1343 that push the effective date out to January 1, 2021. The deadline to comply with SB 1343 does not change the obligation of an employer with 50 or more employees to train new supervisory employees within six months of their promotion or hire.

The December 2019 updates to the FAQ reflect the extension of the deadline for compliance and moves the DFEH’s deadline to complete the optional online training course that employers may elect to use to meet the requirements to early 2020.  Additionally, the update clarifies employers’ obligations with respect to seasonal and temporary employees. Starting on January 1, 2021, such employees must be trained within 30 calendar days of hire or within 100 hours worked, whichever is sooner. If the employee works for fewer than 30 calendar days and less than 100 hours, there are no training requirements. For temporary employees, the temporary services employer must provide training.

Apart from the updated portions of the FAQ, employers should take note of the explanation the DFEH offers of what constitutes “effective interactive training.” Classroom training, computer-based training that is individualized and interactive, and real time webinars can all fall within the definition. The FAQ provides further guidance for each type of training.

Lastly, although California employers do not need to train non-California employees, independent contractors, volunteers, or unpaid interns, these individuals are taken into account when determining whether the employer has five or more employees. In addition, employers must take account of all employees in all locations in determining whether they meet the threshold.

  • Partner

    Ryan has distinguished himself as a nationwide litigator handling complex employment litigation, trade secret cases, and other high-stakes litigation.  Ryan has litigated cases in the state and federal courts of 25 states.  He has ...

  • Partner

    For more than thirty years, Michael Brett Burns has represented leading employers and management in a wide range of employment and public accommodations-related matters. Brett’s practice focuses on employment class ...

  • Associate

    Katherine provides thoughtful but aggressive representation to businesses and their executives to solve their most complicated legal problems. She has extensive experience managing high-stakes commercial and trade secrets ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 3 Minute Read

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published proposed enforcement guidance for workplace harassment for public comment on October 2, 2023. The proposed guidance can be found on the EEOC’s website. While the EEOC attempted to provide updated harassment guidance under the Trump administration in 2017, final guidance was never issued and if this new guidance is finalized it would represent the first time the EEOC has updated its workplace harassment guidance in nearly a quarter century.

Time 2 Minute Read

Virginia joined the list of states limiting employers’ ability to include confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in employment agreements for matters related to sexual harassment.  But the law’s scope seems limited, and does not appear to apply to post-employment severance agreements.

Time 5 Minute Read

The Delaware Chancery Court recently held that the duty of oversight extended to corporate officers. The important decision came after McDonald’s shareholders sued the company’s former head of human resources, alleging that the officer breached his duty of oversight by “allowing a corporate culture to develop that condoned sexual harassment and misconduct.” In that same decision, Vice Chancellor Laster also determined that acts of sexual harassment can constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. Officers are rightly focused on the potential ramifications on their personal liability following the ruling. But that potential increased exposure also raises several insurance implications for companies to consider while procuring and renewing directors and officers insurance coverage.

Time 3 Minute Read

On December 7, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Speak Out Act (the “Act”), which limits the enforceability of pre-dispute non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses covering sexual assault and sexual harassment disputes. The bipartisan Act was previously passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page