If you´re like me, you get a training catalogue or
course offering in the mail (or e-mail) everyday. Â A lot of these programs sound great (and a few of them probably
are).  But  with shrinking budgets what are the courses and programs you
really must provide employees? Â We could
do cost benefit analyzes all week but don´t really have time for that. Â So how about making the process simple. Start
with running programs on the subjects that are required or implied by law.
Here´s a short list of four legally imperative
training subjects.
The handwriting is on the wall
about unlawful workplace harassment training, and the hand is writing a clear
message. Â Most states will require
employers to conduct regularly harassment prevention training for all
employees. Â Connecticut and Maine
already require private employers to provide harassment training to all
employees. Â California and Illinois
require private employers to distribute information about sexual harassment
under certain circumstances. Colorado, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont
have laws that "encourage" employers to conduct sexual harassment training, but
impose no obligations. When the state legislatures "encourage" you do training,
employers are well advised to take the hint.
EEOC and court decisions are also very clear-employers face significant
liability if they fail to thoroughly train all
employees in all aspects of unlawful
harassment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission´s 1999 guidelines on
establishing an affirmative defense, as the following quotes show:
If feasible, the employer
should provide training to all employees to ensure that they understand their
rights and responsibilities [under the laws prohibiting harassment].
An employer should ensure that
its supervisors and managers understand their responsibilities under the
organization´s anti-harassment policy and complaint procedures. Periodic
training can help achieve that result.
An employer should set up a
mechanism for a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation into alleged
harassment . . .. The employer should ensure that the individual who conducts
the investigation would objectively gather and consider the relevant facts.
Whoever conducts the investigation should be well trained in the skills that
are required for interviewing witnesses and evaluating creditability.
As the above quotes from the EEOC show, training must go beyond merely
sensitizing employees about what is and what is not harassment. Â Employees must fully understand how to
report harassment and how their employers will respond. Â Managers must know how to respond to formal
and informal claims of harassment, how to conduct prompt and effective
investigations, how to take corrective action and how to prevent retaliation.
Here´s the good news. Â Many employers have already done sexual
harassment prevention training. The bad news? Â
Federal statutes prohibit harassment based on all categories protected
by law including color, national origin, religion, disability, and age. Â Organizations that have just done sexual
harassment training simply are not adequately protecting themselves.
The need to do training on all
protected categories has become even more urgent since the September 11
tragedies. Â We´ve already seen
unfortunate examples of subtle (and not so subtle) acts of harassment targeted
at Muslims or Arabs. Any harassment training must account for these
post-tragedy issues.
Even the best organizations can
find themselves on the kicking end of a harassment or discrimination lawsuit.
In these situations, you want protection from the punitive damages that can
cripple an organization. Â According to
the U.S. Supreme Court, employer can avoid punitive damages in federal
discrimination and harassment cases if their manager´s actions "are contrary to
the employer´s good faith efforts to comply with Title VII."
How does an employer show that
it has made "good faith efforts" to comply with the discrimination law?
Although the Court did not detail every action that might qualify under this
standard, a "good faith" effort clearly includes: (1) Â adoption and
implementation of anti-discrimination policies, and (2) Â "educating"
personnel about what is and is not permitted under applicable laws. Â In court decision after court decision,
employers who have done trained their managers on how to comply with federal
ant-discrimination laws can avoid punitive damages.
Ask yourselves these questions:
·       Â
Do
my managers know how to make every day employment decisions without creating
the appearance of discrimination?
·       Â
Do
my managers know how to document decisions in a way that fends off discrimination
claims?
·       Â
Do
my managers know what to do if some complains (even indirectly) about
discrimination?
·       Â
Do
my managers know how to identify and respond to potential disability or
religious accommodation issues?
If the answer to any of these
question is "no," you may not have taken good faith efforts and are subject to
punitive damages. Â Training on how to
prevent discrimination and harassment and provide reasonable accommodations
must be considered mandatory by any employer who seeks to avoid punitive damages.
The Federal Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (Fed-OSHA) has issued safety and health program
management guidelines (Guidelines) for use by employers to prevent occupational
injuries and illnesses. These guidelines state that such programs must include
safety and health training.
Employers must implement
training programs to ensure that all employees understand the hazards to which
they may be exposed and how to prevent harm to themselves and others from
exposure to these hazards so that employees accept and follow established
safety and health protections. Â In
addition, supervisors must be trained to carry out their safety and health
responsibilities effectively and to ensure that they understand those
responsibilities and the reasons for them.
The federal Drug-Free Workplace
Act (DFWA) nearly a decade ago. DFWA requires employers who receive grants
from, or enter into contracts with, the federal government to inform their
workers about the hazards of drug use and chemical dependency. These employers
must establish programs informing their workers of the dangers of drug abuse in
the workplace, must acquaint them with their company´s drug-free policy and
must point out available resources for drug counseling and rehabilitation. They
also must inform employees of the penalties that may be imposed for
transgressions. Employers covered by DFWA that fail to conduct such training
may forfeit government grants or be excluded from future government contracts.