California's Training Law

hhaynal

We are a non-California employer but do have two sales agents located in California. Our own corporate mandate requires all employees to complete certain legal compliance training modules every two years. One of the modules relates specifically to preventing harassment in the workplace while the other contains this content in an "overview". The overview is the only required module and the other 30+ modules are at the discretion of the department manager based upon the duties of his/her reports.

My understanding of the California law is that the training (1) is required EVERY year, (2) the course must be at least 2 hours, (3) the law applies to us even though we are NOT a California employer since we have 50+ employees, and (4) the California training law applies to a non-California employee if he/she supervises the California employee.

My main concern is that the 2 modules we have may not meet the 2-hour content requirement. The second concern is making sure the affected folks stay compliant on a yearly schedule, and then to whom do we report the compliance?

If some of our California forumites can offer some insight as they addressed this matter, I'd appreciate hearing from you.

System

Earlier this year I worked on a new training video, "Stop Sexual Harassment: Interactive Training for California Supervisors." Based on conversations I've had with Mark Schickman, the California attorney who's in the video, here's what I think the answers are to your questions:

"My understanding of the California law is that the training (1) is required EVERY year"
No. You need to do it by Jan. 1, 2006 unless you've done it since January 1, 2003. Then every TWO years after that. For new CA supervisors, you need to train them within six months.

"(2) the course must be at least 2 hours"
Yes, it must be two hours devoted to sexual harassment, including CA law.

"(3) the law applies to us even though we are NOT a California employer since we have 50+ employees"
Yes.

"(4) the California training law applies to a non-California employee if he/she supervises the California employee."
No, it's just supers in CA. I assume that neither of your CA ees supervises the other.

There's more information on [link:www.hrhero.com/employersforum/DCForumID14/6499.html|another thread] including a shameless plug for the video, along with a national version.

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com
[link:www.HRhero.com/CalHarass|[img src="/harass/img/stop_sign-125.jpg" border="1"]]
[url]www.HRhero.com/CalHarass[/url]

Gillian3

The Ca. two hour training requirement applies to supervisory employees so it may not apply to your agents. There is an expectation in Ca. that employers are proactive and take steps to prevent harassment so the stuff that you do anyway is good. Another part of the regulation would apply if you hire or promote someone to be a supervisor in Ca. You would have six months to do the two hours of training.

hhaynal

My manager thinks this whole training requirement is ludicrous and in no way, shape or form can California mandate compliance by nonCalifornia employers. I told him the facts and comments coming from the field on this issue.

At this time, we're taking the position that these two employees are sales reps, not supervisors since they do not supervise any direct reports. (My issue with this approach is that the individuals are in a grade level that places them in supervisory status even without direct reports.)

Gillian3

It is not unusual to have supervisory and non-supervisory positions in the same pay grade. I would stick with the traditional definition of a supervisor - someone who assigns and evaluates work and either hires and fires people or has significant input into those position.

E Wart

I agree with you on this. However, this attached article makes it sound as if you only need to have 50 employees in CA for this to be required. I am up in air overthis since I have heard it both ways.

[url]http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/01-06/01-01-06/d06bu372.htm[/url]


E Wart

CindyG

Our corporate office is based in Maine. However we have, a distribution office in CA with 4 employees. One is the Office/Sales Manager. Am I correct to say that since we don't have 50 employees in CA that I don't have to give the manager the 2-hr training? I train him on sexual harassment, but it's less than an hour.

System

CindyG,

This aspect of the California training law is very confusing, and we don't have a definitive answer from the California government. The closest we have are regulations proposed by CA's Fair Housing and Employment Commission that haven't been finalized. And you won't like them.

According to the proposed regs, the law applies to you if you have 50 ees anywhere. It wouldn't matter how many you have in CA. If the regs become final, you'd have to give two hours of training to your one supervisor in CA.

I've talked about this many times with Mark Schickman, the California attorney who's in our video, "Stop Sexual Harassment: Interactive Training for California Supervisors" (and a different version for other states). Long before the regs were proposed, he said the statute would apply to companies like yours.

It gets worse. The proposed regs also say you have to train all employees who supervise a CA ee, regardless of where the supervisor works. If you have a manager in Maine who supervises an ee in CA, you'd have to train the Maine manager, according to the proposed regs. So you might have to train the Maine manager who oversees your CA supervisor. But these are only proposed regs, and I have no idea whether this far-reaching provision will become final.

Here are the proposed regs:
[url]http://www.fehc.ca.gov/pub/rulemaking.asp[/url]

And here's our solution to your training problem, a video created by yours truly that's designed to comply with the CA training requirements:
[link:www.HRhero.com/CalHarass|[img src="/harass/img/stop_sign-125.jpg" border="1"]]
[url]www.HRhero.com/CalHarass[/url]

Good luck.

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

Paul in Cannon Beach

Is this training required for state employees as well? The governor for example?

System

x:o

Paul in Cannon Beach

Come on, its a fair question. I hear he is very "hands on".

System

Just my speculation here, but I imagine that this liberal bill never would've become law with Gov. S. except that the past accusations against him made it very difficult for him to oppose it.

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

CindyG

Thank you very much for the clarification, James! I also appreciate the link to the regs!