join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Total Articles: 24

California’s Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training Requirements Amended

New California Fair Employment and Housing Act regulations that went into effect April 1, 2016, requiring employers to have a discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and prevention policy also set new benchmarks for mandatory sexual harassment training procedures.

The New California Regulations Part III Sexual Harassment and Abusive Conduct Training

The California Office of Administrative Law recently approved regulations drafted by the California Fair Employment and Housing Council. These new regulations, covering the entire gamut of employment law topics within the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), will go into effect on April 1, 2016.

New Harassment/Discrimination Prevention Policy Requirements Take Effect April 1

California's Fair Employment and Housing Council ("FEHC") has adopted new regulations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") that take effect April 1. For the most part, the new regulations reflect recent changes in the law (e.g. making clear that FEHA protects interns and volunteers and persons providing services pursuant to a contract). However, the new regulations contain an important new substantive requirement that employers adopt a written discrimination, harassment, and retaliation prevention policy that meets specified requirements. According to the FEHC, this new policy requirement is in furtherance of employers' obligation to prevent (and not just correct) discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace, and is in addition to employers' existing obligation to provide its workforce with a copy of the DFEH brochure on sexual harassment (DFEH-185) and/or an alternative anti-harassment policy that complies with Government Code section 12950.

California Policies Against Harassment Face New Regulations

California employers will need to comply with a new set of regulations from California’s Fair Employment and Housing Council that go into effect April 1, 2016. Among other things, these regulations require employers with five or more employees to have a written policy against unlawful harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in the workplace, and the regulations require the policies to meet certain requirements.

New California Regulations on Workplace Anti-Harassment, Anti-Discrimination Policies Effective April 1

New California regulations declaring that “[e]mployers have an affirmative duty to create a workplace environment that is free from employment practices prohibited by” the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and that “[e]mployers have an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to prevent and promptly correct discriminatory and harassing conduct” will go into effect on April 1, 2016.


Ensuring employees receive appropriate training in key employment law topics is critical to an organization’s success. Staff and management who understand their rights and responsibilities are more productive, dedicated and loyal. And, an employer’s failure to provide effective in certain areas, like Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”), can lead to legal liability.

California Court of Appeal Reminds Employers About the Importance of Thorough Harassment Investigations

Dawson v. Country Club of Rancho Bernardo, No. D064654 (March 23, 2015): In an unpublished opinion, a California Court of Appeal reversed an order granting summary judgment in favor of the employer, Country Club of Rancho Bernardo, in a food and beverage manager’s sexual harassment case against the Club and her supervisor. This case serves as a reminder for employers to take sexual harassment complaints seriously, given that the failure to do so could have costly implications down the road.

California Adopts Unprecedented "Yes Means Yes" Law, Changing the Way Colleges Must Investigate Sexual Assault Allegations

On September 28, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that he had signed SB967, the so-called Yes Means Yes bill into law.


California has become one of the first states to require employers to provide preventive training on "abusive conduct" in the workplace. “Abusive conduct” is a broader and vaguer standard than unlawful harassment. The new law, AB 2053, modifies the requirements of AB 1825, the now-familiar California law that mandates bi-annual, anti-harassment training for supervisors.

California Supreme Court: Franchisor MAY Be Liable for Franchisee's Employee's Sexual Harassment Claim*

Taylor Patterson, an employee at a Domino's franchise in southern California, sued her employer (called "Sui Juris LLC") and her former manager for sexual harassment. She also sued Domino's Pizza, LLC, the franchisor.

Under New California Law -- No Proof of Sexual Desire Required to Prove Sexual Harassment

On August 12, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 292 which amends section 12940 of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The bill addresses the decision in Kelley v. Conoco Companies and clarifies that an individual who sues for sexual harassment under state law need not prove that the sexually harassing conduct was motivated by sexual desire.

Connecticut Governor Vetoes Bill Regulating Non-Compete Agreements

On July 12, 2013, Governor Dannel Malloy vetoed legislation that would have limited the use of non-compete agreements in Connecticut (which we covered in a recent issue of the Connecticut eAuthority). The bill would have imposed certain requirements on the use of non-compete agreements in the context of mergers and acquisitions. Using his veto authority, Governor Malloy sent the law back to the state’s General Assembly, citing its potential to produce legal uncertainty and ambiguity due to undefined and unclear terms.

Court of Appeal Affirms Summary Judgment on Sexual Harassment Claim and More

The Court of Appeal's decision in McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Association covers a lot of ground. The opinion contains analysis of a variety of issues important for pre-trial and trial lawyers alike.

Court of Appeal: Employee May Use Ralph Act in Certain Sexual Harassment Cases

Sylvia Ventura was a custodian, working for American Building Maintenance or ABM. According to her lawsuit, she suffered serious harassment, including touching, threats, etc. She sued not under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, but under what is known as the Ralph Act, Civil Code Section 51.7. That section provides in part:

Court of Appeal Imposes Franchisor Liability for Franchisee Harassment Claim

A Domino's franchisee's employee claimed sexual harassment against her supervisor and her employer, the franchisee (Sui Juris). However, she also sued franchisor Domino's Pizza. Normally, only the "employer" can be held liable for FEHA violations. But the victim, Patterson, claimed that Domino's was also her employer because of its control over franchisee Sui Juris. The trial court disagreed, but the Court of Appeal reversed.

Court of Appeal: Let Jury Decide Co-Worker Harassment Case

The Court of Appeal issued a "writ" of mandate, overturning a summary judgment order on a harassment claim. Mustafa Rehmani worked for Ericsson in Silicon Valley. He is Pakistani. Many of his co-workers are Indian. Rehmani claimed the Indian co-workers gave him a rough ride. The court describes a series of incidents, over a few months, in which there were political jokes, terrorism jokes, and the like. However, these jokes were pretty isolated, occurring about a month apart.

Court of Appeal: "Me Too" Evidence of Harassment Admissible to Prove "Intent"

So, a plaintiff in a sexual harassment case attempts to introduce evidence that the harasser harassed other employees, but not in the plaintiff's presence, and that the conduct was not directed to the plaintiff.

Court of Appeal Rejects Same-sex Harassment Claim

Sounds like sexual harassment? Wrong. The court of appeal decided that the supervisor's verbal abuse was not truly based on Kelley's sex. Therefore, although rude, the conduct was not actionable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Court of Appeal: Sexual Harassment Claim Untimely

You have to file an administrative charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing within a year of the last act about which you claim is harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. So, when Irene Trovato testified at her deposition that the last time Michael Allyn harassed or retaliated against her was January 31, 2007, the charge she filed on May 8, 2008, was untimely.


Sexual harassment litigation most often involves claims by employees that co-workers or supervisors have created a "hostile work environment". But the anti-harassment laws do not stop there. Unlawful workplace harassment also may come at the hands of non-employees, such as customers, vendors, and others who interact with employees.

Retaining Employees Accused of Harassment.

With the passage of Assembly Bill 1825, the law that requires many California employers to provide sexual harassment training to supervisors, today’s employers are better informed about how to prevent, recognize, and respond to inappropriate workplace conduct than ever before. But even when an employer follows best practices designed to eliminate workplace harassment, the process will not be perfect. Employees and others in the workplace will continue to engage in conduct contrary to an employer’s specific direction and policies.

Effective Anti-Harassment Training.

Benjamin Franklin’s declaration that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” rings true today as it did in the 1700’s. In the workplace context, for example, anti-harassment and discrimination training (i.e., “EEO” training) is the “ounce of prevention” that helps prevent unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims. Even employers who do not believe in Franklin’s idiom may be required to heed it.

Court Reverses $1.4 Million Spanking Verdict Due To Flawed Jury Instructions.

A state appellate court in California recently reversed a $1.4 million jury verdict in favor of an employee who claimed that she and others were spanked during company sales meetings. According to the California Court of Appeal, since the jury was not instructed that to prevail the employee had to show that the harassment occurred because she was female, the verdict could not stand. Orlando v. Alarm One, Inc., No. F050759, F051470, California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (January 14, 2008).

Effective Employee Training Programs: Money In The Bank.

“We’ve been sued.” Those few words can strike panic in employers, particularly in California, where multi-million dollar verdicts in favor of employees are not uncommon. What can employers do to reduce their potential exposure for workplace related claims? Adopting and fairly administering lawful policies and procedures is a good start, of course. However, employers also must take the next step to train employees about what is expected of them and the options available for resolving workplace issues within the organization.