Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Beyond California
On Sept. 30, 2004, California enacted a law that requires employers who operate in California and who employ 50 or more persons to provide all supervisory employees 2 hours of sexual harassment training every 2 years. Employers must complete the first round of training for supervisors by Jan. 1, 2006. After that date, new supervisors must be trained within 6 months of obtaining a supervisory position. Employers are scrambling to ensure that they have trained all California-based supervisors by year's end. This article describes why employers should not focus simply on training supervisors in California. Instead, employers should provide training:
- On all forms of unlawful workplace harassment, not just on sexual harassment;
- To all employees, not just to supervisors;
- To all employees, not just to those located in California.
We also examine the consequences of not providing harassment prevention training to all employees in all states. Specifically, employers who fail to provide harassment prevention training to all employees may:
- Expose themselves to punitive damages in employee lawsuits; and
- Lose their ability to raise a defense to harassment lawsuits.
Preventing Unlawful Harassment: Training Is a Must
No matter the state in which they are located, employers should provide training that addresses all forms of unlawful workplace harassment, not just sexual harassment. While the new California law requires employers to provide 2 hours of sexual harassment training to supervisors, the law also makes clear that this training requirement is intended to represent a “minimum threshold” and does not “relieve any employer from providing for longer, more frequent, or more elaborate training and education regarding workplace harassment or other forms of unlawful discrimination … ”
Harassment and discrimination based on sex is just one of the many types of discrimination protected by state and federal law. As discussed in further detail below, after the Supreme Court's landmark decisions in the 1998 Faragher and Ellerth cases, federal court decisions and EEOC Guidelines have made clear that employers must ensure that harassment prevention training covers all types of unlawful harassment and retaliation.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?