Legal Requirements for Training
-
Why should we provide our employees training on this topic?
All employers must provide their employees harassment prevention training for the following reasons:
-
Employees need to learn about the nuances of what is and what is not harassment.
Your employees need accurate and practical information to identify,
prevent, and report sexual harassment and other forms of workplace
harassment.
-
Save money. You will save money by reducing the number of
harassment claims and the costs of investigating, litigating, and
paying verdicts and settlements to resolve those claims.
-
Law requires training. Several jurisdictions, such as
California, Connecticut, and Maine, require some or all employers to
provide workplace harassment training to their employers. But even in
states where there is not a specific state law requiring the training,
court decisions and federal guidelines make it essential that all
employers provide their employees harassment prevention training. See,
e.g. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (U.S. Supreme Court), Gaines v. Bellino (New Jersey Supreme Court). Organizations that provide such training may:
-
Avoid punitive damages in employee lawsuits
-
Assert a defense to harassment lawsuits
-
Follow federal guidelines established by the EEOC
-
Follow state laws and guidelines
To learn more about the topics listed above, please view the Why Train Employees? section of this site.
It may also be helpful to read an article entitled
Harassment and Discrimination Training: What the Law Requires
(pdf format) that one of Brightline Compliance's Co-CEO's presented to
labor and employment attorneys at the Chicago Bar Association. The
article examines:
-
Recent court decisions and federal and state guidelines that have made
harassment and discrimination prevention training essential
-
The return on investment of harassment and discrimination prevention training
-
Legal issues relating to the content and delivery of harassment and discrimination prevention training
Learn about Sexual Harassment Training Requirements by State.
Read an article on the requirements of California AB 1825 (pdf),
which requires sexual harassment training for supervisors every two
years. The California Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC)
approved new regulations regarding California Law AB 1825 on November
14, 2006. To read an analysis of the regulations, click here.
-
Should we train only supervisors or all employees?
Court decisions and EEOC guidelines indicate that employers should provide harassment prevention training to all employees, not just to supervisors shortly after they are hired.1
Employers should train employees as soon as they are hired so that a
new employee is not harassed, and does not harass another employee,
before receiving harassment prevention training.
Employers who fail to provide harassment prevention training may be
unable to raise an affirmative defense to a harassment lawsuit. For
example, in Harrison v. Eddy Potash, Inc,2
the employer argued that it should be able to assert an affirmative
defense to an employee's sexual harassment claims, noting that it had
sent its supervisors a copy of the company's harassment policy and
instructed each supervisor to post the policy, hold meetings on the
policy with their respective employees, and read the policy to them.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld a jury's decision
that the employer had not taken reasonable steps to prevent harassment
in the workplace. The court noted that the employer had never provided
employees actual training on sexual harassment and that the employer
had not informed the harassment victim of its policy against harassment
when she was hired.
Even in cases where the non-supervisory victim of harassment is aware
of the employer's harassment policy and complaint procedure, employers
may be found liable if they have not trained all employees. For
example, in Yaccarino v. U.S. Postmaster General,3
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reviewed an
administrative law judge's decision denying the Post Office's
affirmative defense to liability from a manager's sexual harassment.
Although the Post Office had a sexual harassment policy and complaint
procedure that the victim knew about, the EEOC nevertheless held that
the Post Office had failed to establish an affirmative defense because
it could show no evidence "that training was provided by the agency to
supervisors and employees to prevent harassment." Similarly, in Gaines v. Bellino,4
the New Jersey Supreme Court indicated that in assessing the
effectiveness of an employer's harassment prevention efforts, one
factor to consider is whether a harassment prevention training program
had been made available to all employees.
-
How often should we provide harassment prevention training?
Harassment and discrimination prevention training should not be simply
a one-time event. California law AB 1825 requires that harassment
training be provided to supervisors every two years. Nationwide, EEOC
guidelines indicate that employees should receive periodic training on
the topic. Courts' interpretations of the laws continually change, and
employees need to be kept up-to-date and refreshed on this topic.
Periodic training can help employers raise an affirmative defense and
avoid punitive damages. For example, in Fuller v. Caterpillar, Inc.,5
the court held that the employer could avoid liability and punitive
damages in a harassment case because it had made good faith efforts to
prevent harassment. The court noted that during a two-year period, the
company had twice provided harassment prevention training.
When it settles harassment lawsuits, the EEOC typically requires the
employer to agree to provide its employees yearly harassment prevention
training. Employers are wise to follow the EEOC's lead and provide each
employee harassment prevention training once a year.
-
EEOC, Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors,
No. 915.002, June 18, 1999 (EEOC guidelines indicate that, if feasible,
employers periodically "should provide training to all employees to
ensure they understand their rights and responsibilities" relating to
workplace harassment.)
- 248 F.3d 1014 (10th. Cir. 2001)
- EEOC
170-AO-8812X (Sep. 6, 2001). Employment discrimination complaints in
the federal government are handled by the agency involved. If the
individual who filed the complaint does not agree with the agency's
decision, he or she can file an appeal with the EEOC.
- 173 N.J. 301 (2002)
- 124 F. Supp. 2d 610 (N.D. Ill. 2000)
|