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

New Legislation Requires Sexual Harassment Training for California Industry

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

For years, California has led the nation in sexual harassment training requirements for employers. The original initiative set to ensure training for supervisors in businesses with 50 or more employees, has now been expanded to include additional private sector workers who are not in a supervisory position.

In the quest to eliminate and prevent harassment in all work place environments, the most recent focus has been on specific industries including, service workers, local government officials, and farm workers.

The California legislature feels that service and farm workers are more at risk for harassment due to the isolated working conditions as well as the risk of reprisal after filing a complaint.

Farm Labor Workers

As requirements to renewing their business license, agricultural companies and contractors will be required to:

  • Submit to a written exam ensuring that they are aware of all sexual harassment policies in their industry
  • Provide written certification that all supervisors have received training
  • Have a plan and training program in place for all non-supervisory employees
  • Participate in at least nine hours of sexual harassment identification training

Property Service Workers

Unlike the other areas addressed by the legislation, service worker requirements will not take effect immediately. This new legislation will come into effect and begin with registration of all employees by the beginning of 2018.

Under the new policy service workers will be required to:

  • Register as a property service employee
  • Review a pamphlet detailing sexual harassment laws and the consequences
  • Participate in sexual harassment training at least every two years

With growing concern in the California legislature for widespread sexual harassment policies, it is anticipated that additional industries will begin to have new requirements for sexual harassment training for all of their employees.

Why Sexual Harassment Training is Important

Whether a business falls under the new legislation regulations or not, implementing a sexual harassment awareness and training program is an important step for any business. These policies should be in place for several reasons.

Provide Employees with a Sense of Security

By providing training to employees, the company will be setting the standard for professional interaction at the workplace. This will help employees feel secure against the threat of harassment. Additionally with a set policy in place, employees are more likely to feel comfortable reporting their concerns or behavior they find inappropriate or uncomfortable.

Defines Limits and Consequences for Violations

Having a set policy will not only detail the exact terms of what the company will consider harassment or inappropriate conduct or behavior, but will also explicitly define the consequences for those actions. This definition is important in the event that an employee is reported or in turn loses their job due to a harassment violation.

Training Helps Protect Employees And The Employer

If the training policy is followed and the appropriate measures are taken to rectify a harassment situation, the employer and the employee will be more likely to resolve the matter outside of litigation. Additionally the company will be protected in the event that a terminated employee sues for wrongful termination as a result of a sexual harassment violation.

The State of California has made it clear: The best way to protect workers from the negative effects of a sexual harassment claim is by adopting and implementing a clearly defined sexual harassment policy and training program.

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.