New Sexual Harrassment Training Law
by Ronald Novotny, Esq., and Monica Ballard, Parallax Education — Effective January 1, 2005, a new law went into effect requiring employers with at least 50 or more employees to provide periodic training in sexual harassment prevention to their supervisors.
Effective January 1, 2005, a new law went into effect requiring employers with at least 50 or more employees to provide periodic training in sexual harassment prevention to their supervisors. The new law, AB 1825, amends the state Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) by requiring such employers to provide sexual harassment training to all supervisory employees employed as of July 1, 2005, and to all new supervisory employees within six months of their assumption of a supervisory position. Employers who have provided training and education to supervisory employees since January 1, 2003 are not required to provide training by the January 1, 2006 deadline, but must thereafter provide the training required by the new law to each supervisory employee at least once every two years.
The provisions of the new law, codified at Government Code § 12950.1, specifically require that the training consist of “at least two hours of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment.” The training must include “practical examples aimed at instructing supervisors on the prevention of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, and must be presented by “trainers or educators with knowledge and expertise in the prevention of harassment, discrimination and retaliation.” The statute also provides that the training required by its provisions is intended to establish only a “minimum threshold and should not discourage or relieve” any employer from providing “for longer, more frequent, or more elaborate training and education regarding workplace harassment . . .”
The new law further provides that failing to provide the required training “shall not in and of itself result in the liability of any employer to any present or former employee or applicant in any action alleging sexual harassment.” However, it further states that “conversely, an employer’s compliance with this section does not insulate the employer from liability for sexual harassment of any current or former employee or applicant.”
This article examines which employees should be provided the “sexual harassment training and education” required by the new statute; what the training should consist of; and the legal implications under both state and federal law of either complying or not complying with the new statutory requirements.
Which employees are covered?
The FEHA defines a “supervisor” as Any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign, reward or discipline other employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.
By requiring that covered employers provide the required training to all “supervisory employees,” the Legislature thus clearly intended for such training to be provided to employees who meet the statutory definition.
The test for determining whether someone is a “supervisor” under the statute is often an overly legalistic one, however, and is not always easily capable of determination. Although higher-ranking managers and executives will presumably almost always meet the test, questions often arise in most organizations as to whether front-line supervisors, foremen, working leads, or other middle management types possess any one of the twelve enumerated powers sufficient to make them a “supervisor.” Even more difficult, on occasion, is the question of whether such persons exercise the authority in a not merely routine or clerical manner but with the “use of independent judgment.” Many middle or lower level supervisors may exercise their powers to manage other workers in ways that require actual “judgment calls” on occasion, while at other times they are merely required to enforce the policies contained in the company’s policy manual or employee handbook.
The consequences of either providing or not providing the sexual harassment training required by the new law to such persons may be significant. Some employers may be reluctant to include lead persons or front line supervisors, who spend most of their day working with rank and file employees, in the training on sexual harassment prevention provided to higher-level management.
However, if such an employee is not properly trained to recognize conduct that may create a “hostile work environment” or to receive a complaint of harassment under the company’s anti-harassment policy, the employer could later be charged with “failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment” as is required by the statute. Moreover, if such a person is later found to actually be a statutory supervisor, the complaining employee may be able to argue that the harassment could have been avoided if that person was provided with the training required by the new law.
On the other hand, providing the required training to employees with “quasi-supervisory duties” may increase the company’s potential liability for unlawful harassment, if that person does not actually meet the statutory test. Because employers are strictly liable for unlawful harassment committed by their supervisors, including someone with front-line supervisory duties, a complaining employee may argue that providing the required training to such a person is an admission that the person met the test of statutory supervisor. This could be particularly significant in a “quid pro quo” type of situation, in which the alleged harasser allegedly conditions employment opportunities or benefits on the submission to sexual advances.
The legal effects of such a Hobson’s Choice will have to be flushed out in the future judicial interpretation of the statute. However, one possible way to avoid this kind of dilemma may be to provide similar kind of training to all of the company’s employees, so that merely including a “quasi-supervisor” in the training required by the new law cannot be argued to constitute some kind of an admission as to supervisorial status. While the training of managers might normally include instructions in how to handle a complaint of harassment, as well as potential discipline and legal liability that could be imposed on supervisors who violate the company’s anti-harassment policies, there is no reason why such information cannot be imparted to rank and file employees and for the harassment training of all employees in the workplace to be uniform.
What does the training consist of?
An effective sexual harassment training program should be tested and have a proven track record of success. The track record of success will contribute to meeting the criteria set by Government Code 12950.1 that the sexual harassment training be “classroom or other effective interactive training”.
What does the training consist of?
An effective sexual harassment training program should be tested before it is implemented and should have a proven track record of success. Under those circumstances the employer will more readily be able to establish that the requirement of Government Code 12950.1 that the sexual harassment training be “classroom or other effective interactive training” has been satisfied.
Generally, an “effective” program is multi-media so that it appeals to different learning styles, and allows for persons who learn in one mode more effectively than in others to process the information provided. An “effective” training will accommodate the following learning styles:
Visual learners= the educational models in the program (see exhibit), involve reading, and video contributing to learning. Often, younger supervisors and supervisors in creative industries learn best with visuals. Lawyers, quite frequently, tend to process written information effectively and are less responsive to video.
Audio learners = Few learners are pure audio learners, but most persons process information at least partially through their auditory systems. Group discussions, and the auditory part of the video portion of the “classroom” contribute to audio learners. Telephone operators and customer service centers learn best when the classroom session includes substantial audio material.
Kinesthetic learners = Participants learn through the skills of practice and role-play, having the chance to build kinesthetic awareness. Effective intervention in response to sexual harassment complaints requires prompt and well advised action, so supervisory employees must practice during their training program, the effective response to a complaint, or sighting of questionable behavior.
Most adults learn optimally in twelve-minute segments. Effective training programs should be designed such that participants change learning mode every 12 minutes, never participating in more than 12 consecutive minutes of written exercises, role-play, reading, or video. Having an expert deliver a lecture to supervisors for the two-hour minimum required by the new law would be ineffective because after 12 minutes, most participants would be mentally reviewing their to-do lists. For this reason, lecture format is generally an ineffective mode for educating non-attorneys.
Interactive Training:
The new code requires that the training be “interactive”. In interactive training, the facilitator has less control than in a lecture, and allows the participants to engage in discussion about the subject presented. There is a direct correlation between the amount that participants learn, and the feeling of relaxation that they experience in the workshop. This is accomplished when the training provider “facilitates” the learning process using a non-confrontational approach. Dictating, lecturing, and opining about expected behaviors breeds resentment and defiance. The training provider must create a climate of mutual trust, openness, authenticity and helping.
The new code suggests “practical examples” and role-play. These exercises and role-play should be customized to the situations the participants would encounter at work. Many scenarios in sexual harassment training appear ridiculous, resulting in the supervisor discounting the entire message. Video and instructional materials should be realistic and industry-specific. If they are not, a phenomenon called “cognitive dissonance” occurs. That is, the participant thinks, “This is not like my workplace. This has nothing to do with me!” Law firm examples might include the following:
You (the attorney), your largest client, and your paralegal are meeting over lunch when the client comments, “With legs like hers, it’s amazing you get any work done!” What does the attorney say or do in this situation?
You (a partner) play golf with some of your associates who happen to be male. The female associates do not play golf. A complaint is made to the firm administrator that the men are receiving preferential treatment and “inside” coaching and development while all “the boys” are on the golf course. What do you say and or do in this situation?
Such scenarios either in textbooks, video, or enacted by actors should stimulate much discussion and opinion about the most effective way to protect all individuals involved. Caution should be taken in selecting media to supplement the training, to avoid video or materials that stereotype harassers as drooling goons who stalk the halls of the employer looking for innocent victims. This over- dramatization and stereotyping of “harassers” results in participants discounting the training.
Testing:
In the next section, the affirmative defense available through the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Faragher & Ellerth will be discussed. This defense can be strengthened when the employer has tested employees to prove that the employee knew to whom they can turn for assistance with concerns about harassment, discrimination or retaliation. Once the employee has completed the post course test which asks the employee to list several persons to whom they could report harassment, if the employee fails to take advantage of these opportunities, the employer has proof that the employee knew what vehicles existed to prevent harassment and failed to do so, allowing the “affirmative defense” allowed through Federal Courts. Testing and maintaining the test record also assists the employer with the “avoidable consequences doctrine” defense available in a FEHA action.
As well, the testing of employees post-training sends a message that the employer takes this subject matter very seriously. The tests should be graded and maintained. Anyone scoring below 80% should receive remedial training. By monitoring the testing of employees who have received this “interactive”, “classroom” training, the employer can further prove that their training efforts were effective.
The legal effects of compliance and noncompliance.
AB 1825 expressly provides that if an employer violates the requirements of the statute, the remedy shall be for the state Fair Employment and Housing Commission to “issue an order requiring the employer to comply.” However, in litigation involving sexual harassment claims, an employer’s compliance or failure to comply with the new training requirements for supervisors will have far greater implications.
First, in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., providing effective sexual harassment training may assist an employer in establishing a defense to liability for sexual harassment of an employee by his supervisor. In the Faragher & Ellerth cases decided in 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in instances in which a supervisor’s sexual harassment of an employee does not result in a “tangible employment action,” an employer may assert an affirmative defense based on evidence that it (1) exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (2) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by it or to avoid harm otherwise.
The federal courts applying this affirmative defense have expressly acknowledged that training employees on prevention of sexual harassment, and on the employer’s complaint process, can assist in establishing the first prong of this two-prong defense. Conversely, the courts have held that when an employer does not provide anti-harassment training, despite the fact that it was mandated by corporate policy, an employer is unable to establish a defense.
The courts have also held that providing sexual harassment training may be used as a means of defending against a claim for punitive damages in Title VII cases. Under the Kolstad decision, an employer’s “good faith effort to comply with Title VII” is largely determinative of whether an agent’s harassing conduct may be imputed to the employer for those purposes. Evidence that an employer has made an effort to “educate its employees about its policies and the statutory prohibitions” has been cited as evidence precluding the imposition of punitive damages in such cases.
Even more significantly for California employers, the provision of effective sexual harassment training may assist in limiting or possibly even eliminating damages for sexual harassment engaged in by supervisors in actions under the FEHA. In Department of Health Services v. Superior Court, otherwise known as the McGinnis case, the California Supreme Court held that an employer may plead and prove a defense based on the “avoidable consequences doctrine” in a FEHA action against an employer for hostile environment sexual harassment by a supervisor. There are three elements to such a defense:
(1) The employer took reasonable steps to prevent and correct workplace sexual harassment; (2) the employee unreasonably failed to use the preventive and corrective measures that the employer provided; and (3) reasonable use of the employer’s procedures would have prevented at least some of the harm that the employee suffered. If the employer can establish that the employee could have caused the harassing conduct to cease by taking “reasonable steps to utilize employer-provided complaint procedures,” it will be able to avoid liability for the harm the employee incurred thereafter.
The McGinnis court specifically stated that in order to take advantage of the “avoidable consequences defense,” the employer ordinarily should be prepared to show “that it has adopted appropriate harassment policies and has communicated essential information about the policies and the implementing procedures to its employees.” It also acknowledged that whether a harassed employee would have reported the harassment will “in many and perhaps most instances present disputed factual issues” to be resolved, which unquestionably include the extent and effectiveness of the employer’s anti-harassment training.
It is therefore clear that providing the training required by the new law to supervisors should materially assist employers in defending sexual harassment claims based on supervisorial conduct in cases filed under both federal and state law. On the other hand, failure to provide such training may result in the denial of the affirmative defense available under the Faragher/Ellerth test in Title VII cases, and of the “avoidable consequences” defense to damage claims in FEHA cases. This state’s employers accordingly have every incentive to comply with the new statute in order to minimize their potential exposure to sexual harassment lawsuits.
| New Sexual Harrassment Training Law |  |
 |
by Ronald Novotny, Esq., and Monica Ballard,Parallax Education — Effective January 1, 2005, a new law went into effect requiring employers with at least 50 or more employees to provide periodic training in sexual harassment prevention to their supervisors.
Effective January 1, 2005, a new law went into effect requiring employers with at least 50 or more employees to provide periodic training in sexual harassment prevention to their supervisors. The new law, AB 1825, amends the state Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) by requiring such employers to provide sexual harassment training to all supervisory employees employed as of July 1, 2005, and to all new supervisory employees within six months of their assumption of a supervisory position. Employers who have provided training and education to supervisory employees since January 1, 2003 are not required to provide training by the January 1, 2006 deadline, but must thereafter provide the training required by the new law to each supervisory employee at least once every two years.
The provisions of the new law, codified at Government Code § 12950.1, specifically require that the training consist of “at least two hours of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment.” The training must include “practical examples aimed at instructing supervisors on the prevention of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, and must be presented by “trainers or educators with knowledge and expertise in the prevention of harassment, discrimination and retaliation.” The statute also provides that the training required by its provisions is intended to establish only a “minimum threshold and should not discourage or relieve” any employer from providing “for longer, more frequent, or more elaborate training and education regarding workplace harassment . . .”
The new law further provides that failing to provide the required training “shall not in and of itself result in the liability of any employer to any present or former employee or applicant in any action alleging sexual harassment.” However, it further states that “conversely, an employer’s compliance with this section does not insulate the employer from liability for sexual harassment of any current or former employee or applicant.”
This article examines which employees should be provided the “sexual harassment training and education” required by the new statute; what the training should consist of; and the legal implications under both state and federal law of either complying or not complying with the new statutory requirements.
Which employees are covered?
The FEHA defines a “supervisor” as Any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign, reward or discipline other employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.
By requiring that covered employers provide the required training to all “supervisory employees,” the Legislature thus clearly intended for such training to be provided to employees who meet the statutory definition.
The test for determining whether someone is a “supervisor” under the statute is often an overly legalistic one, however, and is not always easily capable of determination. Although higher-ranking managers and executives will presumably almost always meet the test, questions often arise in most organizations as to whether front-line supervisors, foremen, working leads, or other middle management types possess any one of the twelve enumerated powers sufficient to make them a “supervisor.” Even more difficult, on occasion, is the question of whether such persons exercise the authority in a not merely routine or clerical manner but with the “use of independent judgment.” Many middle or lower level supervisors may exercise their powers to manage other workers in ways that require actual “judgment calls” on occasion, while at other times they are merely required to enforce the policies contained in the company’s policy manual or employee handbook.
The consequences of either providing or not providing the sexual harassment training required by the new law to such persons may be significant. Some employers may be reluctant to include lead persons or front line supervisors, who spend most of their day working with rank and file employees, in the training on sexual harassment prevention provided to higher-level management.
However, if such an employee is not properly trained to recognize conduct that may create a “hostile work environment” or to receive a complaint of harassment under the company’s anti-harassment policy, the employer could later be charged with “failing to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment” as is required by the statute. Moreover, if such a person is later found to actually be a statutory supervisor, the complaining employee may be able to argue that the harassment could have been avoided if that person was provided with the training required by the new law.
On the other hand, providing the required training to employees with “quasi-supervisory duties” may increase the company’s potential liability for unlawful harassment, if that person does not actually meet the statutory test. Because employers are strictly liable for unlawful harassment committed by their supervisors, including someone with front-line supervisory duties, a complaining employee may argue that providing the required training to such a person is an admission that the person met the test of statutory supervisor. This could be particularly significant in a “quid pro quo” type of situation, in which the alleged harasser allegedly conditions employment opportunities or benefits on the submission to sexual advances.
The legal effects of such a Hobson’s Choice will have to be flushed out in the future judicial interpretation of the statute. However, one possible way to avoid this kind of dilemma may be to provide similar kind of training to all of the company’s employees, so that merely including a “quasi-supervisor” in the training required by the new law cannot be argued to constitute some kind of an admission as to supervisorial status. While the training of managers might normally include instructions in how to handle a complaint of harassment, as well as potential discipline and legal liability that could be imposed on supervisors who violate the company’s anti-harassment policies, there is no reason why such information cannot be imparted to rank and file employees and for the harassment training of all employees in the workplace to be uniform.
What does the training consist of?
An effective sexual harassment training program should be tested and have a proven track record of success. The track record of success will contribute to meeting the criteria set by Government Code 12950.1 that the sexual harassment training be “classroom or other effective interactive training”.
What does the training consist of?
An effective sexual harassment training program should be tested before it is implemented and should have a proven track record of success. Under those circumstances the employer will more readily be able to establish that the requirement of Government Code 12950.1 that the sexual harassment training be “classroom or other effective interactive training” has been satisfied.
Generally, an “effective” program is multi-media so that it appeals to different learning styles, and allows for persons who learn in one mode more effectively than in others to process the information provided. An “effective” training will accommodate the following learning styles:
Visual learners= the educational models in the program (see exhibit), involve reading, and video contributing to learning. Often, younger supervisors and supervisors in creative industries learn best with visuals. Lawyers, quite frequently, tend to process written information effectively and are less responsive to video.
Audio learners = Few learners are pure audio learners, but most persons process information at least partially through their auditory systems. Group discussions, and the auditory part of the video portion of the “classroom” contribute to audio learners. Telephone operators and customer service centers learn best when the classroom session includes substantial audio material.
Kinesthetic learners = Participants learn through the skills of practice and role-play, having the chance to build kinesthetic awareness. Effective intervention in response to sexual harassment complaints requires prompt and well advised action, so supervisory employees must practice during their training program, the effective response to a complaint, or sighting of questionable behavior.
Most adults learn optimally in twelve-minute segments. Effective training programs should be designed such that participants change learning mode every 12 minutes, never participating in more than 12 consecutive minutes of written exercises, role-play, reading, or video. Having an expert deliver a lecture to supervisors for the two-hour minimum required by the new law would be ineffective because after 12 minutes, most participants would be mentally reviewing their to-do lists. For this reason, lecture format is generally an ineffective mode for educating non-attorneys.
Interactive Training:
The new code requires that the training be “interactive”. In interactive training, the facilitator has less control than in a lecture, and allows the participants to engage in discussion about the subject presented. There is a direct correlation between the amount that participants learn, and the feeling of relaxation that they experience in the workshop. This is accomplished when the training provider “facilitates” the learning process using a non-confrontational approach. Dictating, lecturing, and opining about expected behaviors breeds resentment and defiance. The training provider must create a climate of mutual trust, openness, authenticity and helping.
The new code suggests “practical examples” and role-play. These exercises and role-play should be customized to the situations the participants would encounter at work. Many scenarios in sexual harassment training appear ridiculous, resulting in the supervisor discounting the entire message. Video and instructional materials should be realistic and industry-specific. If they are not, a phenomenon called “cognitive dissonance” occurs. That is, the participant thinks, “This is not like my workplace. This has nothing to do with me!” Law firm examples might include the following:
You (the attorney), your largest client, and your paralegal are meeting over lunch when the client comments, “With legs like hers, it’s amazing you get any work done!” What does the attorney say or do in this situation?
You (a partner) play golf with some of your associates who happen to be male. The female associates do not play golf. A complaint is made to the firm administrator that the men are receiving preferential treatment and “inside” coaching and development while all “the boys” are on the golf course. What do you say and or do in this situation?
Such scenarios either in textbooks, video, or enacted by actors should stimulate much discussion and opinion about the most effective way to protect all individuals involved. Caution should be taken in selecting media to supplement the training, to avoid video or materials that stereotype harassers as drooling goons who stalk the halls of the employer looking for innocent victims. This over- dramatization and stereotyping of “harassers” results in participants discounting the training.
Testing:
In the next section, the affirmative defense available through the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Faragher & Ellerth will be discussed. This defense can be strengthened when the employer has tested employees to prove that the employee knew to whom they can turn for assistance with concerns about harassment, discrimination or retaliation. Once the employee has completed the post course test which asks the employee to list several persons to whom they could report harassment, if the employee fails to take advantage of these opportunities, the employer has proof that the employee knew what vehicles existed to prevent harassment and failed to do so, allowing the “affirmative defense” allowed through Federal Courts. Testing and maintaining the test record also assists the employer with the “avoidable consequences doctrine” defense available in a FEHA action.
As well, the testing of employees post-training sends a message that the employer takes this subject matter very seriously. The tests should be graded and maintained. Anyone scoring below 80% should receive remedial training. By monitoring the testing of employees who have received this “interactive”, “classroom” training, the employer can further prove that their training efforts were effective.
The legal effects of compliance and noncompliance.
AB 1825 expressly provides that if an employer violates the requirements of the statute, the remedy shall be for the state Fair Employment and Housing Commission to “issue an order requiring the employer to comply.” However, in litigation involving sexual harassment claims, an employer’s compliance or failure to comply with the new training requirements for supervisors will have far greater implications.
First, in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., providing effective sexual harassment training may assist an employer in establishing a defense to liability for sexual harassment of an employee by his supervisor. In the Faragher & Ellerth cases decided in 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in instances in which a supervisor’s sexual harassment of an employee does not result in a “tangible employment action,” an employer may assert an affirmative defense based on evidence that it (1) exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (2) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by it or to avoid harm otherwise.
The federal courts applying this affirmative defense have expressly acknowledged that training employees on prevention of sexual harassment, and on the employer’s complaint process, can assist in establishing the first prong of this two-prong defense. Conversely, the courts have held that when an employer does not provide anti-harassment training, despite the fact that it was mandated by corporate policy, an employer is unable to establish a defense.
The courts have also held that providing sexual harassment training may be used as a means of defending against a claim for punitive damages in Title VII cases. Under the Kolstad decision, an employer’s “good faith effort to comply with Title VII” is largely determinative of whether an agent’s harassing conduct may be imputed to the employer for those purposes. Evidence that an employer has made an effort to “educate its employees about its policies and the statutory prohibitions” has been cited as evidence precluding the imposition of punitive damages in such cases.
Even more significantly for California employers, the provision of effective sexual harassment training may assist in limiting or possibly even eliminating damages for sexual harassment engaged in by supervisors in actions under the FEHA. In Department of Health Services v. Superior Court, otherwise known as the McGinnis case, the California Supreme Court held that an employer may plead and prove a defense based on the “avoidable consequences doctrine” in a FEHA action against an employer for hostile environment sexual harassment by a supervisor. There are three elements to such a defense:
(1) The employer took reasonable steps to prevent and correct workplace sexual harassment; (2) the employee unreasonably failed to use the preventive and corrective measures that the employer provided; and (3) reasonable use of the employer’s procedures would have prevented at least some of the harm that the employee suffered. If the employer can establish that the employee could have caused the harassing conduct to cease by taking “reasonable steps to utilize employer-provided complaint procedures,” it will be able to avoid liability for the harm the employee incurred thereafter.
The McGinnis court specifically stated that in order to take advantage of the “avoidable consequences defense,” the employer ordinarily should be prepared to show “that it has adopted appropriate harassment policies and has communicated essential information about the policies and the implementing procedures to its employees.” It also acknowledged that whether a harassed employee would have reported the harassment will “in many and perhaps most instances present disputed factual issues” to be resolved, which unquestionably include the extent and effectiveness of the employer’s anti-harassment training.
It is therefore clear that providing the training required by the new law to supervisors should materially assist employers in defending sexual harassment claims based on supervisorial conduct in cases filed under both federal and state law. On the other hand, failure to provide such training may result in the denial of the affirmative defense available under the Faragher/Ellerth test in Title VII cases, and of the “avoidable consequences” defense to damage claims in FEHA cases. This state’s employers accordingly have every incentive to comply with the new statute in order to minimize their potential exposure to sexual harassment lawsuits.
