While each of the states’ laws designates which companies must provide
harassment training, Maine requires the training at companies of only 15
employees or more. Both California and Connecticut specify that companies
employing 50 or more employees conduct the training. In this instance,
Maine’s law is more stringent than the other two states. Maine is also more
stringent is designating which employees must complete the training. Both
California and Connecticut require training for employees with supervisory
authority only, while Maine’s law requires sexual harassment training for
all employees, regardless of their positions.
In many areas, however, Maine’s mandatory harassment training is more
lenient. For instance, Maine does not specify the qualifications of a
trainer; individual companies are at liberty to choose trainers. In
contrast, California and Connecticut require qualified trainers. Connecticut
allows a great deal of latitude by designating trainers as individuals
employed by the company or other persons who agree to provide the training.
California law, however, includes stringent details describing trainer
qualifications. Qualified personnel include the following only: · Attorney ·
Human Resources professional · Harassment prevention consultant · Law school
or college professor with knowledge and experience in the prevention and/or
handling of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation claims Paskoff said
that “by raising the bar on trainer qualifications, California sends a clear
message to employers: check the box training is no longer acceptable.” A
paragraph in an employee handbook, a reminder in a newsletter, an obligatory
lecture at a department meeting – none of these constitute sexual harassment
training. Instead, employers must invest their resources in highly trained
professionals with both the knowledge and skills to effectively train and
assess participants.
In addition to trainer qualifications, Maine is also more lenient in the
areas of documentation. Maine requires no documentation of sexual harassment
training, while Connecticut simply encourages documentation. In contrast,
California requires it. Again California holds its employers and supervisors
to a new level of accountability. In addition to basic documentation that
includes the names of the participants and trainers, AB 1825 requires an
employer to give each supervisor a copy of its anti-harassment policy and to
obtain documentation from each supervisor acknowledging receipt of the
policy. The company must then maintain the documentation for two years.
One distinguishing element among the three states’ harassment training
laws is California’s requirements regarding teaching methodology. These
requirements set a uniquely high standard. The methodology must include the
following elements:
- · Questions that assess learning
- · Skill-building
exercises
- · Discussion questions that actively engage participants in the
learning process
- · Questions that assess learning success
- · Hypothetical
situations and scenarios that are true-to-life
- · Memorable strategies for
reporting and preventing sexual harassment
- · Opportunities for participants
to ask questions and receive prompt answers
While both California and
Connecticut state that the mandated training must be interactive,
California’s training law goes to great lengths to describe exactly what
constitutes an interactive approach. AB 1825 forces employers to do more
than just pass on information to employees and hope they remember it.
Instead, California’s training participants have every opportunity to
understand the concepts and absorb them into their own professional values.
In addition, companies bear the responsibility of choosing materials that
fulfill the methodology criteria and using trainers who can effectively
administer it.
As for course content, the three laws have the following content in
common:
- · Definition of sexual harassment
- · State and federal statutory
provisions concerning sexual harassment
- · Types of conduct which constitute
sexual harassment
- · Employer’s obligation to investigate
- · Remedies
available to victims AB 1825, however, also mandates the following course
content:
- · Limited confidentiality of the complaint process
- · What to do if
a supervisor is personally accused of harassment
- · How to use the essentials of an anti-harassment policy if a
complaint is filed · Fully detailed anti-harassment policy provided by
each employer.
- Supervisors’ acknowledgment of receipt of the policy
The additional
requirements in the California law focus directly on supervisors. Once
supervisors complete the training and acknowledge receipt of an
anti-harassment policy, they are fully accountable for knowing and applying
the policies correctly. If a sexual harassment complaint arises, they can
neither plead ignorance of the law nor accuse the employer of failure to
provide policy. These measures empower employees who file sexual harassment
lawsuits, thus laying the groundwork for successful prosecution of
offenders.
The sexual harassment training measures are positive tools, but their
real effectiveness lies in their reinforcement efforts. Paskoff said,
“Whereas Connecticut and Maine only require supervisors to undergo sexual
harassment training once, California’s AB 1825 recognizes that the most
effective learning comes from education that is continuously repeated and
enforced until it is fully integrated into the day-to-day work life.” To
that end, California’s sexual harassment training requires supervisors to
repeat the training every two years.
For more information on sexual harassment training, visit
www.eliinc.com .
Headquartered in Atlanta, ELI specializes in harassment and sexual
harassment training, discrimination training, wage and hour compliance
training, union avoidance training, and other kinds of workplace training.
For more information, visit the ELI website at
www.eliinc.com .
===========
Meredith Schecter
Curriculum and Implementation Manager ELI®
2675 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 470 Atlanta, GA 30339
.
