<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11093232\x26blogName\x3dAB+1825+Sex+Harassment+Trainer\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://ab1825.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://ab1825.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-5676514328722923481', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

AB 1825 Sex Harassment Trainer

A free resource for California employers about the sexual harassment training law (AB 1825).

FEHC revises revisions

Friday, September 08, 2006
Apparently, the FEHC didn't intend to "sneak" (or to have "snuck"?) the changes they didn't underline or strikeout in the revised August 29, 2006, version of the proposed AB 1825 regulations. My last post mentioned how some of the changes from the June 20 version didn't appear in the first version of the August 29 FEHC revisions.

Today, they sent out a corrected version of the August 29, 2006 proposed regulation, which highlights all of the amendments.

According to the FEHC announcement, "On September 7, 2006, the Commission discovered several errors in the underlining and strikeout formatting of the August 29, 2006, modified regulations that it had issued to the public after its August 29, 2006, Commission meeting. This corrected version fixes those errors."

Only in California

Thursday, September 07, 2006
Snuck into the August 29 revisions of the Fair Employment & Housing Commission (FEHC) regulations was a change that limits the AB 1825 training mandate to only supervisors in California. Formerly, supervisors who "directly supervised" employees located in California had to be trained, no matter where those supervisors were located.

I say "snuck" because the August 29 revisions didn't show the text change from the earlier June 20 version of the regulations. The FEHC showed other changes, striking out deletions and underlining additions to the text, but didn't show the change in the definition of "supervisory employee" that it made.

Under the June 20 proposed rule, a sales manager located in Detroit supervising salespeople in Oakland had to take AB 1825 training. Now, under the August 29 proposed rule, only those supervisors physically in California need to be trained.

Note: You still have to count all employees located anywhere to determine if you have enough (50) employees to be covered by AB 1825. The revision only limits the supervisors who need to be trained to those in California.