Sexual Harassment Prevention Training: More Than Just a Good Idea

From Venulex.com

On the ever-changing landscape of employment law, harassment prevention training has evolved from a "good idea" to a legal imperative for employers. Indeed, while courts across the country are lining up in holding that the existence of harassment prevention training is a critical component when evaluating an employer's defense to harassment claims, several states have led a charge to statutorily require sexual harassment training for both public and private employers.

For instance, California law now mandates that employers (with 50 or more employees) provide two hours of interactive sexual harassment training to supervisors every two years. Newly hired supervisors, or those promoted to a supervisory position, must be trained within six months of the hire/promotion date. Notably, California's mandatory training requirements have broad application: employers based outside of California who have at least 50 employees anywhere in the country must train their California supervisors in accordance with the California rules regardless of how few employees or supervisors they have working in California.

Even employers presently unaffected by state-mandated training requirements should nevertheless consider implementing and maintaining a company-wide sexual harassment training program. Not only could such training serve to prevent prohibited and costly behavior, but it can also be a crucial component of an employer's affirmative defense to legal liability when a supervisor is accused of sexual harassment. Specifically, a formidable sexual harassment training program can demonstrate that the employer exercised "reasonable care" to prevent and correct sexual harassment in the workplace. See e.g., Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). Moreover, should liability be found, a sexual harassment training program can provide an employer with a first-line defense to contest the imposition of punitive damages because the employer's commitment to the training program demonstrates its good faith efforts to comply with anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws. See e.g., Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. (1999).

From Venulex.com

Rate this content: