How can multi-state employers prevent workplace harassment

The requirements of these laws can overlap in ways that are not easy to reconcile. CA requires two hours of training for managers every two years, and one hour for employees. Connecticut (CT) requires two hours for both. NY and Illinois (IL) require annual training, but without any duration requirement. NY and IL require training employees, who don’t reside in their states, but work a portion of their time there. Keeping track of these rules and ensuring that the right employees receive the right training at the right time can be a headache for a national HR organization.

It’s also worth noting that the substantive laws around sexual harassment are in flux. For many years, sexual orientation and gender identity were protected in states like CA and NY, but not at the federal level. That changed in the summer of 2020 when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination and harassment, also protects gay and transgender employees. Overnight, effective anti-harassment training was needed to address these protections, so everyone would understand the rules.

Similarly, Federal and state laws have long required that offensive, unwelcome conduct be sufficiently “severe or pervasive” to rise to the level of legally impermissible harassment. Following a long history of court decisions finding harmful misconduct to fall short of this standard, reforming states have taken different approaches to correcting course. CA kept the standard but abrogated problematic judicial opinions in this area while emphasizing in statute that a single incident can rise to the level of harassment.

NY on the other hand got rid of the severe and pervasive standard altogether, instead allowed employers to prevail in hostile work environment claims, if they could show that the conduct in question does not rise above the level of petty slights and trivial inconveniences. These standards are not especially important when it comes to prevention. Employers should not tolerate any form of misconduct, regardless of whether it rises to the level of illegal harassment; however, states require training on them, and employers must make sure their training is up to date.

Finally, in addition to substantive requirements for training content, these states have other requirements for how to deliver training. Employers opting for online training must navigate different times in seat, interactivity, retraining, and records retention requirements. What was once manageable policy training with a carve out for California has now become an overwhelming challenge for multi-state employers.

Given all these shifting rules, multistate employers should look for a unified approach to training that can streamline compliance across jurisdictions. Training employees in different states separately is not ideal and could lead to serious problems. Instead, employers should use the same training for all employees, with content tailored to the requirements of different jurisdictions as needed. This creates a shared experience around harassment prevention training that serves as a foundation for company policies.

But that’s only one part of what employers should look for when looking at harassment prevention solutions. The instructional experience should include high quality interactive content that makes a potentially tedious compliance exercise into a meaningful harm prevention program. Finally, employers must also go beyond legal rules and formalities to address the social and workplace problem of harassment.

Doing so will not only help achieve compliance, and reduce the risk of significant and severe consequences for the organization, but also change workplace perceptions in a way that elevates the organization’s culture, leading to a more harmonious, productive and inclusive work environment for all.