A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

New California law requires workplace training on general abuse

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

There are managers and workers in California who mistreat people at their workplace, but technically are not committing sexual harassment or discrimination. Even when abusive words or actions do not fit into these well-known legal categories, they can be extremely painful and create a toxic work environment for victims.

To try to fill in this gap, as of Jan. 1 California law requires larger employer to train their employees on the “prevention of abusive conduct” as part of their anti-sexual harassment training. The new law specifically refers to “abusive conduct” as conduct “with malice” that could reasonably be interpreted as “hostile, offensive and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests.”

The law gives examples like “derogatory remarks, insults and epithets” and “verbal or physical conduct” that is “threatening, intimidating, or humiliating.” Another example is sabotaging another person’s work performance.

None of this behavior necessarily would involve sexual harassment or discrimination on the basis of, say, gender, race or country of origin. But it still has no place in any California workplace. Now employers in the state are required to teach their management and staff not to act this way.

One limitation in the new law is that it does not create a private right of action for victims. This means that, unless the abuse is based on a protected category (race, gender, age, etc.), the victim cannot sue. However, failure on the employer’s part to provide training about this behavior could potentially become a course of action, depending on judicial interpretation of the new law.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.