Sexual harassment linked to declines in profitability

Employers with higher ‘scores’ see lower future stock returns: study

While the negative impacts of sexual harassment have become well known in recent years — ranging from lower productivity and morale to increased legal costs and absenteeism — establishing a direct connection to the bottom line should provide further impetus for employers to act.

That’s according to a recent study that found firms in the United States with greater incidence of sexual harassment see lower future stock returns.

In looking at the years 2011 to 2017, the Canadian researchers found that employers with higher “scores” of sexual harassment saw an annual shareholder value loss ranging from US$1 billion to $2.4 billion.

They also found these companies were associated with sharp declines in operating profitability and increases in labour costs.

“We wanted to show that if you were a CEO of a firm, and you were just a profit-maximizing son of a bitch, would you care about this? So, we basically wanted to show to those people that ‘Yes, you should care about this, because allowing this rot in your company means that it’s going to hurt you, in terms of stock returns, profitability and labour expenses — it’s very expensive, very costly to allow this stuff to continue,’” says Shiu-Yik Au, assistant professor in the Asper School of Business at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg and co-author of the study Me Too: Does Workplace Sexual Harassment Hurt Firm Value?

“Respecting people and making money go hand in hand — this is not something where it’s in opposition. It’s not a cost centre; it’s an investment into your company’s future.”

If there’s any takeaway from the #MeToo movement, it’s that sexual harassment is pervasive — much more than was initially thought, says Andréanne Tremblay, assistant professor in the department of finance, insurance and real estate at Université Laval in Quebec, and co-author of the study.

“It seems intuitive that firms would do a lot of things to prevent it, but... some firms are somehow doing half-hearted attempts to prevent it, either because they don’t think sexual harassment is pervasive or because they think it’s too costly… so this is our attempt to show pure economics [and] economically motivate these people to say, ‘Sexual harassment has some very significant consequences, economically speaking, and, therefore, that’s yet another reason why you should prevent it.’”

Background 

The researchers searched the anonymous comments of employer review sites Indeed and Glassdoor for words such as “sex,” “sexual,” “abuse,” “assault,” “misbehaviour,” “harass” and “harassment.” Examples included “The store has a lax policy for sexual harassment and disrespectful management” or “I quit due to sexual harassment and discrimination from my branch manager that was not dealt with after multiple complaints.”

The final sample involved 1.65 million reviews, covering about 1,100 firms. The researchers counted the number of times these comments appeared in company reviews over the course of the year, divided that by the total number of reviews and then turned that into a percentage to figure out which of the companies had the most harassment, says Au.

“We were then able to sort them into really bad sexual harassers and people who probably aren’t that bad or have no reports of sexual harassment. After dividing those people into those groups, we were basically able to do some portfolio analysis where we take these bad companies or the high sexual harassment firms and put them into one portfolio and normal firms or regular firms into another portfolio. And then we compare the returns over time,” he says.

“If you look at the normal portfolio, it does great; it earns like 30- or 40-per-cent returns. It’s very impressive. If you look at the high sexual harassment firms, basically, it doesn’t even go up — it actually falls by about 10 to 20 per cent over the course of that period. So, we’re talking about a large gap.”

Stock returns are affected by a variety of known factors or characteristics, such as company size, whether it’s a growth company or a value company, speed of growth and types of profitability, says Au. 

“Even after controlling for all those known characteristics that affect stock returns, this effect still remains in a large, substantial basis. Most of our calculations are showing roughly a 20-per-cent decline in firm value after we control for all the risk factors.”

The researchers controlled for a lot of factors, says Tremblay.

“For example, we control for past profitability, we control for employee satisfaction, for employee treatment, unionization, the age of the firm, the size of the firm, and so on… And the stock return performance of the worst offenders still remains significantly lower than the rest of the firms.”

The issue is not necessarily how much harassment an employer has but how it is dealt with, says Au.

“There seems to be some sort of culture of permissiveness or a culture of denying sexual harassment. And that lets the rot spread,” he says. “It’s not about one or two people [who are] really causing the issue; it’s the fact that these individuals are all over the company and people aren’t helping them. And then, on top of that, the sexual harassers learn that they can actually continue on the behaviours and that spreads throughout the company and causes them a lot of problems.”

The results speak very loudly to CEOs or other people who are more numbers-driven, says Tremblay.

“People might say, ‘Well, yeah, it would be nice, but the cost benefit trade-off is not worthwhile for our firms; we have to respond to our shareholders.’ But… if we do crunch the numbers, actually, these issues, they are important, not only for the profitability or the numbers, per se, or the market capitalization, the stock returns, but also because your productivity, your negative consequences, they do have an impact. So, it’s really just quantifying this impact. Because, too often, people are ignored or shuffled away… it’s not properly dealt with.”

The study should also help HR and management when it comes to building a business case for greater investment in preventing harassment, she says.

“You cannot ignore it, basically. If, until now, you’ve ignored it for whatever reason — because the arguments about the negative consequences were not compelling enough — then the economic argument, I think, is yet another view to make the point or make the case that investing in prevention is important.”

Having this kind of research can help with the cause, according to Ryan Wozniak, senior vice president of legal and operations at Peninsula Employment Services in Toronto.

“In the business context, a positive financial outcome is always a good motivator and tends to trigger change and adaptation,” he says. “If you operate a business that makes a concerted and proactive effort to stamp out workplace harassment and foster a culture of productivity and employee harmony, you are very likely to experience — in the long run — financial benefits as a result of that, in the form of less or lower direct costs, in the form of legal fees and absence and employee attrition costs, and probably better brand recognition and better brand power.”

Most businesses treat workplace harassment as a serious issue that has to be proactively tackled, and that has a direct financial benefit in the long run, says Wozniak.

“It fosters a culture of productivity and collaboration and employee harmony,” he says. “And that’s very important, especially in larger businesses where you have teams working together, teams working on large projects across different divisions — it’s very important that people are able to collaborate, are able to get along and able to work comfortably and peacefully. And, it also helps you keep top performers and helps you keep good employees. Nobody wants to work in an environment that’s toxic or plagued by belligerence or harassment or bullying.”

Long list of consequences

Other costs of harassment include legal claims — such as compensable claims for chronic mental stress or for intentional infliction of mental distress, says Wozniak.

“When you’re hit with a legal claim, there’s obviously the direct costs you incur by way of legal fees and legal representation — if that’s what you require — as well as the additional cost that may come in the form of a judgment or fine or remedial order.”

Then there are employee absences that may involve workers’ compensation claims or lost-time injury claims, along with disrupted service levels or temporary staffing costs, he says.

“[There are some] individuals who may claim, for example, constructive dismissal because of an untenable workplace might pursue a civil claim on the basis that they’ve been harassed to the point of their existing work relationship not being tenable.”

Another issue involves the Health and Safety Act in Ontario, says Wozniak, which says an employer that fails to investigate or conduct a reasonable investigation of an incident of workplace harassment can be required to hire a third-party investigator at its own cost.

Aside from having policies to address incidents of harassment — including a process for investigating and adjudicating and, if necessary, taking disciplinary action — there should be various training platforms, both under applicable health and safety legislation and provincial legislation, but also within their own cultures and work environments, he says.

“By promulgating a culture of confidentiality, of disclosure and of proactivity, employees, in turn, trust their employer, and that open communication channel will then allow the business to, in the long run, go a long way to eliminating or greatly reducing the amount of workplace harassment that occurs.”

Click here to read the full article....

Article published in: HRReporter Canadian
Article published on: Oct 1, 2019 by: Sarah Dobson
Article spotted by: Louise Burden

Harassment tort reversed

Ontario appeal court rules on case involving RCMP constable

In looking into bullying and harassment claims by an RCMP constable,

 a lower court recognized a tort of harassment — which has since been overturned. 

Credit: REUTERS/Valerie Zink

In 2017, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice caused somewhat of a stir in the employment law realm when it recognized a new freestanding tort of harassment.

The case involved RCMP constable Peter Merrifield, who claimed he suffered harassment and bullying while on the force from 2005 to 2012.

In allowing the action, trial court judge Mary Vallee found many of the managerial decisions Merrifield faced constituted harassment, along with being liable for intentional infliction of mental suffering. She also recognized  the new tort.

As a result, Merrifield was awarded $100,000 in general damages, alongside $41,000 in special damages and $825,000 in costs of the action.

But that was wrong, according to the Court of Appeal for Ontario in a March 15, 2019, decision, noting the lower court erred in applying the test for mental suffering, made errors in fact-finding, and should not have recognized a tort of harassment.

The retraction is important for employers, according to Lisa Talbot, partner at Torys in Toronto.

“The Court of Appeal decision in Merrifield very clearly said that — as of today anyway — we do not have a tort of harassment in Ontario. It left open the possibility that there could be a finding that there is a tort of harassment in the future, but not on these facts.”

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that employees are not going to be given damages just for “harassment,” but acts that could also be seen to be harassing or bullying or inappropriately inform other areas of the law and other causes of action, said Simon Reis, an associate at Blaney McMurtry in Toronto.

“It’s in the Occupational (Health and) Safety Act; it’s in the human rights code. This is just about whether there is a freestanding common law tort of harassment.”

However, the law hasn’t yet changed in this area so the obligations that employers had before the Merrifield decision are still the same — both in tort and under statutory provisions, said Amanda Bertucci, an associate at Goodmans in Toronto.

“Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, there are requirements about procedures that have to be put into place, the way that investigations are conducted. So there are statutory obligations that employers have to be aware of and abide by, regardless of the common law tort of harassment — whether it’s recognized or not.”

Creating a new tort

In making its decision, the appeal court first looked at what was required to recognize or establish an new tort.

“Common law change is evolutionary in nature: It proceeds slowly and incrementally, rather than quickly and dramatically,” said the appeal court, citing the 1989 decision Watkins v. Olafson.

The Court of Appeal really made clear that it’s not the role of the court to be determining that a new tort exists or creating a new tort, said Talbot.

“Rather, it’s the role of court to recognize, over a period of time, that a tort may now exist. So it sounds like a fine distinction, but it does make a difference.”

Courts are often reluctant to tread into the territory of what would be the legislature’s more defined roles, said Bertucci.

“The courts are hesitant to create new torts or create new common law provisions when there isn’t legislative grounding to do that already, and the Court of Appeal found there wasn’t. So I don’t think it’s entirely surprising for the court to delineate what they feel their jurisdiction is as compared to the legislature.”

The appeal court said really the court’s job “is more to recognize things that are already percolating and already in existence, and not to just create things from scratch, so to speak,” she said.

And in looking at the 2012 Jones v. Tsige, which introduced the intrusion upon seclusion tort, the appeal court said it was grounded in an emerging acceptance of claims for breach of privacy. The judge there carefully reviewed Ontario and Canadian case law, provincial legislation, academic scholarship, tort law in other countries along with social change.

“This is not a case whose facts cry out for the creation of a novel legal remedy, as in Tsige,” said the appeal court. “In this case, there are legal remedies available to redress conduct that is alleged to constitute harassment.”

The legislature has already occupied some of the field with respect to harassment, as seen with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the human rights code, said Reis.

“The Court of Appeal has sounded a warning to some of the lower courts that we need to be careful in recognizing new bases of civil liability and that the common law needs to develop in incremental steps with due regard for whether it’s appropriate to recognize a new cause of action,” he said.

While the appeal court said there was not sufficient precedential authority, said Reis, “I think what they were getting at is, right now, there’s no compelling reason to recognize this. The fact that the elements of this proposed tort of harassment were so similar to the elements of the pre-existing, well-established tort of intentional infliction of emotional suffering (IIMS), I think that that was a factor.”

Mental suffering

The appeal court looked at the tort of IIMS and said it is well-established in Ontario and can be used as a basis for claiming damages for mental suffering in the employment context:

“Whereas IIMS requires flagrant and outrageous conduct, the proposed harassment tort would require only outrageous conduct. More significant, IIMS is an intentional tort, requiring an intention to cause the kind of harm that occurred or knowledge that it was almost certain to occur.”

If you look at the elements of the tort of harassment, it does seem to set a lower bar than what IIMS would require, said Reis.

“Conduct for harassment just needs to be outrageous, not also flagrant. And the proposed tort of harassment would require that the plaintiff suffered severe or extreme emotional distress and not a visible and provable illness.”

Harassment would have been more of a negligence-based tort, whereas IIMS has an element of intentionality to it, said Bertucci.

“The threshold’s a little bit higher because the three elements are that there has to be conduct that was flagrant and outrageous, calculated to produce harm, and which results in visible and provable illness to reach the threshold for IIMS — that’s a little bit higher than what the proposed tort of harassment would have looked like.”

The Court of Appeal noted the test set out by the lower court for harassment was really not substantially different from the test for IIMS, said Talbot.

“In other words, that there is under our existing law and under the existing head of damage, of intentional infliction of mental suffering, recourse for employees or others who want to look to the court.”

While Vallee looked at four cases in her 2017 decision, she erred in doing so, said the appeal court: “Taken as a whole, these cases confirm neither the existence of the tort, nor its elements.”

In the end, the appeal court said it did not “foreclose the development of a properly conceived tort of harassment that might apply in appropriate contexts” but Merrifield “has presented no compelling reason to recognize a new tort.”

Click here to be directed to the full article....

Article written by: Sarah Dobson
Article published by: May 20, 2019 HR Reporter Canada
Article spotted by: Louise Burden

CRA ordered to pay more than $60,000 to worker sexually harassed by boss

Agency failed to provide safe level of physical separation between the two

The CRA has been ordered to pay the maximum compensation to an Ontario employee who was sexually harassed by her boss after the federal labour board found the organization failed to take steps to prevent it from happening. REUTERS/Chris Wattie

OTTAWA (CP) — The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has been ordered to pay the maximum compensation to an Ontario employee who was sexually harassed by her boss after the federal labour board found the organization failed to take steps to prevent it from happening.

A panel of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board says the agency must pay Marilyn Doro $20,000 for the pain and suffering she experienced as a result of the harassment.

The board says the organization must pay Doro another $20,000 for ``the reckless manner in which it handled the initial investigation of her complaint.''

The agency must also reimburse Doro, who worked at its Hamilton office, for nearly $23,000 in out-of-pocket expenses related to her treatment.

In a decision released earlier this year, the board says while the agency quickly launched an investigation in 2010 after Doro filed a sexual harassment complaint against her direct supervisor, Dominic D'Ippolito, it failed to provide a safe level of physical separation between the two.

The board also found it ``very problematic'' that the CRA tried to send Doro to an office in another city in order to separate her from D'Ippolito, then moved her desk to another area against her wishes when she refused the switch.

The burden to create a harassment-free workplace should not be on the person being harassed, the board said, noting the CRA's response exacerbated Doro's illness, causing her to be on sick leave for months.

``Ms. Doro had done nothing wrong. At a time when she most needed the support of her colleagues and a safe and secure workplace, the CRA thought it might move her workplace to another city to solve its own problem,'' the board wrote in its ruling.

``This was a shameful way to find an easy way out of a situation that demanded urgent attention and it added additional stress and harm to Ms. Doro.''

Instead, the organization should have confronted D'Ippolito with the evidence that was readily available within days of the complaint and, after allowing him to address the allegations, either placed him on administrative leave or taken other steps to protect Doro, it said.

The harassment began shortly after D'Ippolito became the team leader of Doro's section, part of a ``cadre of predominantly male managers'' overseeing a team of mostly female employees, the decision reads.

Doro experienced ``almost daily unwanted attention while she was captive at her desk,'' the board said. One two occasions, D'Ippolito touched her while she was at her desk, with one of those incidents described as a back rub, it said.

He also made and gave her two CD mix tapes of love songs and told her to listen to them only at home, it said.

Over five months, he invited her to coffee or lunch, offered her rides home, embarrassed her by sending her chocolates in the office mail, sent her sexually themed emails to her personal email account, texted her outside work hours and made ``disturbing'' comments that suggested he was watching her home, the board said.

Doro eventually reported the harassment, prompting management to intervene, it said. After presenting her with several options, including switching offices and working from home, management moved Doro's desk, it said.

The harassment continued, however, as her new location was still visible from D'Ippolito's office, allowing him to leer at her as she walked by, the board said.

Management also failed to press D'Ippolito on the content of the CDs or request a copy after he admitted to giving music to Doro and other staff, the board said. Had they done so, they would have discovered the recordings involved ``When A Man Loves A Woman'' and ``Have I Told You Lately That I Love You,'' both by Rod Stewart, it said.

The board also found the CRA had inadequate training on sexual harassment and presented no evidence that D'Ippolito had attended a training session.

It recommended the agency consider a more comprehensive program to raise awareness of what sexual harassment is, how to identify it in the workplace and how to prevent or stop it, among other things.

Two weeks after reporting the harassment to management, Doro filed a grievance. The investigation took about two years. D'Ippolito was moved out of her division and into another, and was disciplined with a six-day suspension without pay.

Article written by: Paola Loriggio

Article published on: March 13, 2019 in hrreporter.com

Article spotted by: Louise Burden

Leaders and HR need to step up their game to prevent sexual harassment

"Quite frankly, there can't be anyone who rationally believes that harassment is okay!"

In Gandalf Group's recent C-Suite Survey, 94 per cent of respondents said that sexual harassment was not an issue in their workplace.

Notably, 95 per cent of these C-Suite executives in the survey were male. Even in the age of the #MeToo movement – particularly in small organizations that aren't in the spotlight – CEOs often don't want to hear about a sexual harassment issue, particularly if it has to do with a top performer behaving badly. All too often, they turn a blind eye to the situation and find any excuse not to deal with it.

The fact that such an overwhelming percentage of top-ranking executives don't believe it is an issue speaks volumes. Over the course of my career as a human resources professional, I can attest to plenty of situations when a C-Suite executive has refused to believe or act on sexual harassment claims. In one example, I took on a project with a mid-sized firm. When I started the project, the president's executive assistant warned me not to go into a meeting alone with the vice-president of sales. When I asked why this was tolerated, I was told that it was because he was responsible for 50 per cent of the sales revenue. He wasn't going anywhere.

Depending on how senior or how successful the alleged perpetrator is, or how much the company relies on that person, the CEO will either say they don't believe the complaint or aren't prepared to do anything about it. The HR professional then has to go back to the employee and deliver that message.

It's a difficult spot to be in. Employees think the role of HR is to be their advocate and become angry when HR can't resolve issues for them. With so many recent sexual-assault allegations making headlines, many have accused HR of not taking a strong enough position to advocate for the victim. Instead, they are seen as protecting the company and its image – or worse, as having no power to do anything. 

In truth, HR's role is to facilitate a work environment in which both the employer and the employee are satisfied and engaged. Much like a mediator, an HR leader does not simply advocate for the employee or the company; he or she is also focused on making informed recommendations for the greater good that benefit both sides. And that role can become extremely challenging whenever those two outcomes are at odds with one another, or when it's the boss himself who is perpetrating the harassment. 

Policies only go so far

The Gandalf study also found that leadership is one of the most important factors in preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. Indeed, while probably every company can point to its long list of policies on appropriate conduct and other issues, the reality is that all the policies in the world will not impact harassment. A piece of paper does not alter behaviour on its own. It is the leadership behind the policies, and the fortitude to enforce them, that moves the needle.

The CEO and HR leader each have important roles to play, especially when it comes to allegations of sexual harassment. They need an open and honest relationship with each other that enables frank discussion. Such relationships don't happen overnight or without effort, and both need to work at building trust. This relationship should be forged early on and should consider all employee-related matters, preferably before having to deal with a sexual harassment (or any other) complaint.

When these types of issues are raised, a CEO has these responsibilities:

• Listen to the HR leader. HR knows what is going on in the company. They hear things and understand the employees better than the CEO.
• Take it seriously. Don’t dismiss the allegations without exploring them. Make it a priority to find the truth.
• Disallow enabling. To say “he was just joking” is not a valid excuse. There is no justification for this type of behaviour.

For their part, HR must present issues credibly and demonstrate good judgment and critical thinking. What they need to do:

• Address the CEO in terms they understand. Listen to the CEO and the specific concerns raised. Ignoring or dismissing these concerns will result in losing credibility with him or her.
• Present the facts. Don’t bring up suppositions or gossip, and make no assumptions. Treat this with the seriousness it deserves.
• Recommend a plan of action. Anticipate what the CEO’s concerns and objections will be, and address them in your recommendation using a balanced approach.

Both CEOs and HR leaders must avoid drawing any conclusions before getting the full picture. They also need to be aware that their own personal relationships are impacted by how they handle such incidents – both internally with employees and externally with stakeholders.  

And don't make the mistake of thinking there will be no consequences. There will be. 

Click here to read more.....

Article written by:  Janet Candido (a special to the Globe and Mail)

Article published by: The Globe and Mail March 6 and updated March 8

Article spotted by: Louise Burden

What Are You Doing To Prevent Harassment In Your Workplace?

Sexual harassment remains a growing concern among HR professionals—particularly in the tech field.

At HR Options we practice what we teach. We are a team of professionals with women and men in positions of authority; supporting and encouraging a healthy workplace environment free from harassment of all kinds. HR Options strongly believes that companies can—and should—empower and work with Human Resources to set the tone for a positive company culture, and be proactive in addressing harassment concerns for all employees.

As we watched NBC’s Megyn Kelly interview six women from Silicon Valley who are standing up to fight against the tech industry’s “bro culture”—one that intimidates, harasses and then tries to silence women who speak up against harassment—we were discouraged and frustrated that this behavior is still so common. HR Options continues to reach out to our partners to provide guidance, best practices, and support to combat this abusive workplace culture.

Fear of retaliation.

In the wake of ex-Uber employee Susan Fowler’s now infamous blog post, where she revealed that her Uber team manager propositioned her for sex, more women are speaking out about this issue.

But the issue, and the process to prevent and resolve sexual harassment in the workplace, is complicated by the people who are supposed to support employees: human resources.

According to Fowler, when she went to Uber’s HR department to let them know about the harassment, she alleges that they wouldn’t look into the matter because this was the manager’s “first offense.” And Fowler further maintains that HR told her that he was a “high performer” so they wouldn’t feel comfortable giving her manager more than a warning, as this was probably just an “innocent mistake” on his part.

Of the women Kelly spoke with in her report about sexual harassment in the tech field, all six revealed that they were harassed in the workplace. They didn’t feel comfortable talking about it previously due to fear of retaliation—of losing their job, losing funding for their business, gaining a reputation in the tech industry of being someone who’s just whining.

And when they did talk about it to colleagues they were told to suck it up, things happen. What did they expect?

All for reporting and standing up to unwanted sexual advances by someone, usually a male, in a position of power.

The women described their experiences to Kelly, using words like panic. Shock. Shame. "It’s devastating...it can really take an emotional toll,” they admit. “I wish I didn’t have to talk about it, but a I also feel like—if I don’t say something, who will?”

What would you do if this happened to you? Or a coworker? A friend?

HR Options can help you prevent harassment in your workplace.

HR Options new online Harassment Prevention Training Class, designed specifically for employers to comply with California AB 1825, is an engaging, interactive training designed by our expert HR consultants and reviewed by top employment law firms. Learn how to recognize harassment in the workplace, and how to respond to harassment complaints by your employees. Don’t wait until one of your employees has been harassed to take action. Be proactive. Take steps now.

Click here here for more information and to enroll.

Kelly's parting advice is something that shouldn’t need to be stated aloud. But we’re repeating it anyway:

“If you’re in a position of power over someone, don’t hit on them. Period. And if you’re a woman facing sexual harassment, remember there is safety in numbers. Reach out to other women. The odds are you are not alone.”

Written by Alison Peters

Lead Project Manager, HR Options

Spate of Sexual Harassment Allegations Show Why HR is Business Critical

In the span of a week and a half — from Feb. 20 to March 1 — three stories on sexual harassment at three major companies (Uber, Tesla and Sterling Jewelers) made national news.

Two of those stories were based in Silicon Valley. To top it off, Uber had an executive resign over sexual harassment allegations from his past job at Google in that timeframe — unrelated to the accusations filed earlier by Susan Fowler.

Three is, as they say, a crowd. HR leaders may be shaking their heads as they read these stories, but it may also feel all too familiar. Young, agile companies (and companies that still view themselves as such) are unwilling to invest resources to address these problems, keeping diversity on the sidelines rather than a fully integrated business imperative, experts told HR Dive.

HR is business critical — a lesson Silicon Valley, in particular, is learning a little late.

Read more about how companies can (and should) empower and work with HR to set the tone for a positive company culture, and be proactive in addressing harassment concerns before it's too late.

Article spotted by: Alison Peters
Article Written by: Kathryn Moody
Article Published: 2017

HR Options can help you prevent Harassment in Your Workplace.

Our online Harassment Prevention Training Class, designed specifically for employers to comply with California AB 1825, is an engaging, interactive training designed by our expert HR consultants and reviewed by top employment law firms. Click here for more information and to enroll.