Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • DISCRIMINATION—RACE—9th Cir.: White employee revives hostile work environment claim tied to racial justice training
    • DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—7th Cir.: Hospital pharmacist, fired after refusing COVID vaccine, failed to show religious discrimination
    • DISCRIMINATION—SEX—N.D. Ga.: Lesbian employee’s challenge to fertility benefits plan failed under Bostock
    • EEOC NEWS—New lawsuits focus on disability discrimination, unlawful medical exams, discriminatory qualification standards
    • EMPLOYEE LEAVE—N.D. Ga.: Employee advances FMLA, but not discrimination, claims where he was fired in RIF during leave
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Beyond the Band-Aid: California overhauls employers' first aid obligations
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—New California law adds anti-hate speech training requirement for employers: what to know + 4 steps to take now
    • FEDERAL REGULATIONS—USCIS announces final rule revising EB-5 fees, other provisions
    • LOCAL LEGISLATION—CALIFORNIA—Lawmakers pass legislation preventing use of force majeure provision for labor disputes by waste service providers
    • ON THE LABOR FRONT—NLRB preemption challenges to novel state labor laws: How have states fared in rebuffing those challenges?
    • RETALIATION—D.S.C.: Physician’s retaliation suit against Shriners Hospital can proceed
    • RETALIATION—N.D. Ohio: Worker fired after making threats in response to alleged groping advances retaliation claims
    • WAGE-HOUR—EXEMPTIONS—S.D. Ohio: Court denies summary judgment regarding overtime claim as to technical consultants
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT INSIGHTS—New California law adds anti-hate speech training requirement for employers: what to know + 4 steps to take now, (Sep 29, 2026)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Fisher Phillips
    Organizations Mentioned:Fisher & Phillips

    By Benjamin M. Ebbink and Montana Massone of Fisher Phillips, LLC

    Assess your current sexual harassment prevention training to determine whether it addresses prohibited harassment, abusive conduct, and workplace speech based on protected characteristics.

    Many California employers will need to expand their sexual har ...

    By Benjamin M. Ebbink and Montana Massone of Fisher Phillips, LLC

    Assess your current sexual harassment prevention training to determine whether it addresses prohibited harassment, abusive conduct, and workplace speech based on protected characteristics.

    Many California employers will need to expand their sexual harassment prevention training to include an anti-hate speech component by 2028. A new law adds a broad component to California’s already detailed harassment-prevention training obligations, and employers should begin reviewing their training programs now so they can update content and vendor arrangements well before the effective date. This Insight covers everything employers need to know and provides four steps you should consider taking now.

    What Happened?

    California employers with five or more employees are already subject to sexual harassment prevention training obligations, and Governor Newsom just signed a bill (AB 1803) that will require that training to also cover anti-hate speech, beginning January 1, 2028.

    What Are the New Anti-Hate Speech Training Requirements?

    Covered employers will be required to provide supervisors and employees with practical guidance on recognizing, reporting, and confronting workplace speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred against people” based on certain protected characteristics, including because of a person’s race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status.

    The law does not require a wholly separate training program and does not increase the required duration of training. Moreover, AB 1803 specifies that if an employer’s training includes information about prohibited harassment and the prevention of abusive conduct based on protected characteristics, it will satisfy the new “hate speech” training requirement. Therefore, for many employers, their existing compliant sexual harassment prevention training may already be sufficient.

    What Employers Should Do Now?

    California employers should consider taking the following steps before the January 1, 2028, effective date:

    • Review Existing Training Content. Assess your current sexual harassment prevention training to determine whether it addresses prohibited harassment, abusive conduct, and workplace speech based on protected characteristics. For many employers, this will already be the case. If it does not, you will need to update your training content by January 1, 2028.

    • Coordinate With Training Providers. Ask internal training personnel and outside vendors and counsel whether they can incorporate practical content addressing the recognition, reporting, and confrontation of hate speech in the workplace. Work with counsel to help ensure compliance.

    • Evaluate Reporting and Response Practices. Confirm that employees understand how to report concerns and that the company’s reporting channels and investigation practices are prepared to address complaints involving potentially hateful or abusive speech.

    • Monitor Guidance. Watch for agency guidance that may clarify the scope of the new training requirement and how it may be integrated into existing harassment-prevention programs. The best way to stay up to speed is to subscribe to Fisher Phillips’ Insight System.

    Conclusion

    Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor AB 1803 and related California workplace law developments. If you have questions about harassment-prevention training or related workplace policies, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, any attorney in any of our California offices, or any attorney in our Employment Discrimination and Harassment Practice Group.

    Benjamin M. Ebbink and Montana Massone

    Fisher Phillips, LLC

    URL: https://www.fisherphillips.com/

    Attorneys: (Fisher Phillips).

    ExpertInsights: ExpertInsights Discrimination SexualHarassment IndividualRights StateLegislation CaliforniaNews PracticeTip

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use