New Anti-Hate Speech Training Requirements
Question: I am a business owner and heard there are new anti-hate speech training requirements. Is this true, and if so, when would this training take effect?
Answer: Additional training for anti-hate speech might be required if a new proposed bill (AB 1803) becomes law. Existing law requires employers with five or more employees to provide at least two hours of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to supervisors and one hour to nonsupervisory employees every two years. Those trainings cover topics including sexual harassment, abusive conduct, and discrimination based on protected characteristics, including gender identity and sexual orientation.
AB 1803 is a proposed law that would require employers to add anti-hate speech training as a component to their existing sexual harassment prevention training. In other words, the anti-hate speech training would be part of the regular training, not a separate course. If passed, the new requirements would begin January 1, 2028.
The stated purpose of the bill is to reduce the prevalence of hate speech/crimes in California. According to its proponents, it would provide practical guidance on recognizing, reporting, and confronting workplace speech that vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred against people based on protected characteristics, including age, national origin, disability, gender, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. AB 1803 would identifies speech and conduct based on protected characteristics as something employees should learn to recognize, rather than leaving employees to infer it from general harassment standards. The bill does not define hate speech. Instead, it describes the training that should be provided to address hate speech. The proposed instruction would be added to, rather than replace, the subjects already required as part of harassment prevention training.
If enacted, employees would not automatically need to undergo a new training if they start a new job. The current proposed law states that an employee would have a six month grace period to complete the training if they received compliant training within the prior two years from a current, prior, alternate, or joint employer. The employee would then be placed on a two-year tracking schedule based on the employee’s last training. The current employer has the burden of establishing that the prior training was legally compliant.
There is some opposition to the proposed new law. The bill has been criticized as overly broad potentially unconstitutional. Opponents also point out that California already has strong anti-hate speech mechanics in place and that any rise in hate speech is a result of successful policies, greater transparency, and increased reporting. Because the bill has not yet become law and there is no implementing guidance, employers should not treat it as a current, separate legal requirement.
AB 1803 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 30, 2026, and was referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations for further consideration. Although AB 1803 is not yet in effect, it is a good practice to make sure employees are current on harassment prevention training to ensure compliance with California law. Employers may also want to review their training materials and tracking systems so they can add the new content if the bill becomes law. Reviewing these materials now may help employers identify what would need to be revised while they continue providing the training currently required by law. Employers with questions regarding harassment-related training compliance are encouraged to consult with their employment counsel.
Associational Disability Accommodation Obligations Under FEHA
Question: I have an employee whose spouse has a disability and requires ongoing care. The employee requested a modified work schedule so the employee can take the spouse to pre-scheduled doctors’ appointments. Do I have to accommodate this request?
Answer: Maybe. Historically, there has been confusion about whether California law (the Fair Employment and Housing Act) requires employers to provide accommodations to employees who are not themselves disabled but are associated with a disabled person. Recent federal court decisions have clarified this confusion. A recent string of court opinions suggest that the FEHA requires employers to engage in the interactive process and consider reasonable accommodations for employees associated with a disabled individual.
The FEHA is California’s version of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Like the ADA, the FEHA prohibits discrimination, and separately requires reasonable accommodation, for employees with protected characteristics, including a physical or mental disability. However, the FEHA does not expressly state whether these protections extend to non-disabled employees caring for a disabled family member.
In 2016, the California Court of Appeal in Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. held that the FEHA prevents employees from discriminating against employees who are associated with a disabled individual. However, the court stopped short of deciding whether the FEHA establishes a separate duty to “reasonably accommodate” employees who associate with a disabled person.
Since the Castro-Ramirez, there has been confusion and inconsistent court opinions on this question. But there have been some significant recent developments. In 2025, three separate federal district courts in California addressed the issue and reached the same conclusion—that the FEHA may require employers to consider reasonable accommodations for employees associated with disabled individuals. Although not binding on a California state court, these opinions give employers insight into how a state court might analyze the FEHA.
Given these recent opinions, a best practice for employers is to consider reasonable accommodations for employees who are associated with a disabled individual. Depending on the circumstances, accommodations may include intermittent leave, modified scheduling, remote work, shift changes, or other workplace adjustments that enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the position while assisting a disabled family member. Employers should engage in the interactive process and evaluate whether the requested accommodation is reasonable under the circumstances and whether it would create an undue hardship. If a reasonable accommodation exists and does not impose an undue hardship, it should generally be considered. However, employers are not required to eliminate essential job functions, create new positions, or implement accommodations that would impose significant operational burdens.
These cases do not establish a bright-line rule regarding what accommodations must be provided. Rather, employers must evaluate each request individually. For example, an employee whose child is undergoing cancer treatment may request a modified schedule or intermittent leave to attend medical appointments. By contrast, an employee whose child has a temporary, non-serious illness who requests a one-year leave of absence may be seeking an accommodation that is unreasonable or would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
The rules regarding associational disability accommodations including medical certification requirements continue to develop. A case-by-case analysis is required to ensure compliance with the FEHA. Employers with questions regarding associational disability are encouraged to consult with their employment counsel.
Updates Regarding Compensable Pre-Hire and Onboarding Activities
Question: I am planning to hire a new employee soon. I have a few pre-employment activities planned for this new hire. Should I pay this person for these types of activities?
Answer: It depends. Some activities must be paid as hours worked while others fall into the general unpaid onboarding duties. Generally, activities related to assessing the individual’s qualifications or eligibility for employment are not paid. However, activities that go beyond this and primarily benefit the employer must be paid as normal hours worked. For example, if the employer is effectively shifting tasks that would otherwise occur on the employee’s first day of work to an earlier date, the time is likely compensable.
Given these general standards, employers should evaluate the compensability of each pre-hire and onboarding activity separately to ensure compliance. The California rules governing pre-hire and onboarding activities were recently examined in the federal case of Martinho v. Amazon.com, Inc. The court in Martinho analyzed the nature of various pre-employment activities and determined whether each should be paid as hours worked.
According to the Martinho court, examples of noncompensable pre-hire activities include submitting employment applications, undergoing drug testing, completing Form I-9 documentation, or participating in a background check. Note that these activities occur before an employer decides to hire an employee.
The analysis is more nuanced once the hiring decision has been made. This is because—at this point—the employer has already assessed the individual’s qualifications or eligibility for employment. If an employer requires an individual who has already accepted a job offer to complete additional pre-employment tasks, there is an increased risk that these will be seen as benefiting the employer and therefore should be paid. The ultimate question is whether the employer is advancing its own operational interests by shifting work that would otherwise occur during paid time.
Examples of compensable pre-hire activities may include taking a badge photo when the badge is required for daily facility access and timekeeping purposes. In that scenario, the employer benefits by saving time on the employee’s first day of work, and the activity does not assess the employee’s qualifications. Similarly, attending a welcome presentation, training, or setup activities that do not evaluate qualifications but instead provide job-related information may be compensable. This is because they may be seen as advancing the onboarding process before the official start date.
The Martinho decision also affirmed that the actual substance of the activity determines whether it is paid or not. Labeling an activity as “pre-hire” or “contingent” does not determine whether it is compensable. Even if a job offer is conditioned upon completing a particular activity, the activity may still be compensable if it does not relate to assessing the individual’s qualifications or eligibility for employment. Employers who do not compensate employees for certain pre-hire or onboarding activities may be exposed to claims for unpaid wages and related penalties.
The rules regarding whether pre-hire activities must be paid are complicated. A case- by-case analysis is required to ensure compliance with California wage and hour law. Employers with questions about pre-hire and onboarding practices are encouraged to connect with their employment counsel.