A California law requiring employers to include anti-hate speech instruction in workplace harassment training beginning in 2028 is drawing objections from religious organizations that question whether the mandate could conflict with their beliefs about sexuality, gender identity and freedom of expression.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Churches, religious schools and faith-based employers in California are facing questions about whether a newly enacted workplace training law will apply to their organizations after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation requiring anti-hate speech instruction for covered employers beginning Jan. 1, 2028.
The legislation, Assembly Bill 1803, expands California’s existing sexual harassment prevention training requirements to include instruction on identifying and addressing workplace speech involving legally protected characteristics.
Religious advocacy organizations argue that the law’s language could expose employees and employers to conflicts involving sincerely held religious beliefs, particularly concerning sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
California Family Council, a nonprofit organization advocating for religious liberty and family policy, has warned that the legislation does not expressly exempt churches, ministries or religious educational institutions from its training requirements.
However, California’s existing Fair Employment and Housing Act contains an exemption for nonprofit religious associations and corporations. Whether that exemption resolves the concerns raised about AB 1803 has not been definitively addressed in the reported dispute.
The distinction is important because the new law expands an existing workplace training requirement rather than establishing a separate prohibition on religious teaching or expression.
Newsom signed AB 1803 on Sept. 27, giving employers more than a year to prepare before the additional instruction becomes mandatory.
The legislation was introduced by Democratic Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal of Long Beach and received support from lawmakers seeking to expand workplace protections against harassment and discrimination.
Under existing California law, employers with five or more workers generally must provide sexual harassment prevention training every two years.
Supervisors receive at least two hours of instruction, while nonsupervisory employees receive at least one hour.
The training addresses workplace harassment, discrimination, retaliation and abusive conduct, including behavior involving sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.
AB 1803 adds anti-hate speech instruction to those existing requirements without establishing a separate course or increasing the mandatory training hours.
Beginning Jan. 1, 2028, covered employers must incorporate practical instruction concerning workplace speech directed at people because of characteristics protected under California employment law.
The legislation describes the required instruction as guidance on recognizing, reporting and confronting workplace speech that “vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred” against individuals based on protected characteristics.
Those characteristics include race, religion, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, among other categories protected under California law.
The statute also specifies that training addressing unlawful harassment and the prevention of abusive conduct based on those characteristics can satisfy the new requirement.
That provision allows employers to integrate the material into their existing workplace programs rather than creating an entirely separate training system.
The central dispute concerns the meaning of the speech covered by the law and how employers will be expected to distinguish unlawful harassment from expression protected under state and federal law.
AB 1803 does not establish a separate statutory definition of the term “hate speech.”
Instead, it uses the description of workplace statements that vilify, humiliate or incite hatred toward people based on protected characteristics.
Critics argue that the terminology could be interpreted differently by employers, government officials and training providers.
Supporters of workplace anti-harassment measures maintain that employers have responsibilities to protect workers from unlawful discrimination and hostile conduct.
Those responsibilities already exist under federal and California employment laws.
The new legislation concerns the content of employee training rather than creating a general criminal prohibition on offensive or controversial speech.
Nevertheless, religious organizations are questioning how that distinction will be applied in practice.
In an Oct. 5 analysis of the legislation, California Family Council argued that religious employers could face uncertainty over whether workplace instruction would conflict with traditional religious beliefs.
The organization maintains that the law leaves too much discretion to state officials and training providers in determining which statements should be characterized as hateful.
It also questioned how the law would apply when employees express religious beliefs about marriage, sexuality or biological sex.
California Family Council Vice President Greg Burt criticized the legislation after Newsom signed it.
“Sacramento just gave itself the power to decide which convictions are hateful and then ordered every employer in the state to teach that verdict,” Burt said.
“Christians will not stop speaking the truth in love because a training module calls it vilification. We must obey God rather than men.”
Burt’s statement reflects the organization’s position that certain religious teachings could be characterized as unacceptable workplace speech under the expanded training requirements.
The law itself does not specifically prohibit employees from discussing religious beliefs, nor does it establish that expressing a religious conviction automatically constitutes unlawful harassment.
California employment law does, however, prohibit harassment based on protected characteristics, and the relationship between workplace conduct and protected expression can depend on the circumstances.
Those questions could become more prominent as employers prepare training programs before the 2028 implementation date.
California Family Council has also pointed to existing state-sponsored sexual harassment training materials as evidence of how the new requirements might be interpreted.
The California Civil Rights Department provides online training modules explaining workplace harassment and discrimination standards.
Those materials include examples involving transgender employees, pronoun usage and access to workplace facilities.
According to the organization’s account, the department’s training identifies deliberately using incorrect pronouns for transgender workers as potentially harassing behavior.
The group also objects to training language addressing situations in which employees challenge a coworker’s use of a restroom corresponding to that person’s gender identity.
“The Civil Rights Department’s own supervisor and employee module tells trainees that using the wrong pronoun for a transgender identified person on purpose is harassment, as well as objecting to a co-worker’s use of a restroom that does not match their sex,” California Family Council stated.
The organization argues that such examples could require some religious employees to participate in instruction they consider inconsistent with their beliefs.
California law already protects employees against discrimination and harassment based on gender identity and gender expression.
Whether particular workplace conduct violates those protections depends on the applicable legal standards and surrounding circumstances, rather than a single statement taken in isolation.
The Civil Rights Department’s training materials are intended to explain those standards to employers and employees.
Religious advocacy groups remain concerned that expanding the curriculum to include anti-hate speech instruction could increase conflicts between workplace rules and religious expression.
California Family Council cited the experience of Dennis McCourt, a Christian employee of an out-of-state Bible software company, who objected to portions of workplace training addressing transgender-related issues.
McCourt reportedly refused to complete slides that he believed required him to affirm positions contrary to his religious convictions.
“You could put a gun to my head. I won’t do it,” McCourt told the organization.
His case has been presented by California Family Council as an example of the concerns that employees may encounter when required training addresses disputed religious and social questions.
The organization has indicated that it intends to help employees and faith-based employers seek legal guidance concerning religious accommodations.
A separate report published by LifeSiteNews described the organization’s plans to connect churches, Christian schools, ministries and individual employees with resources addressing potential conflicts.
Those resources may include legal guidance concerning religious exemptions and accommodations under federal and state employment law.
The issue of religious exemptions is particularly important because the law applies through California’s existing employment framework.
The Fair Employment and Housing Act generally defines covered employers for discrimination purposes while excluding certain nonprofit religious associations and corporations.
California’s Civil Rights Department acknowledges that exclusion in its official employment guidance.
However, the anti-hate speech training provision is incorporated into Government Code Section 12950.1, and questions remain about its application to employers asserting religious exemptions.
California Family Council says no court ruling, attorney general opinion or Civil Rights Department guidance has conclusively addressed that question in the context of the new requirement.
As a result, the organization’s warning that religious employers may be affected should be distinguished from a determination that every church will be required to provide the training.
The legislation does not expressly identify churches as a separate category of employers subject to the mandate.
Its applicability will depend on the interaction between the training statute, existing exemptions and any subsequent administrative interpretation or judicial ruling.
California employers also remain subject to federal workplace laws that provide protections for sincerely held religious beliefs.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and generally requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.
The scope of that obligation depends on the facts of a particular case.
Religious accommodations are not automatically available in every circumstance, and employers must also comply with applicable workplace protections for other employees.
These potentially competing responsibilities are among the issues that could arise if an employee objects to participating in mandated instruction.
Organizations challenging the law may seek clarification through administrative procedures or litigation.
However, a court challenge generally requires a plaintiff to establish an appropriate basis for bringing the case, including a sufficiently concrete dispute over the law’s application.
The fact that implementation is scheduled for January 2028 gives employers time to evaluate compliance requirements and consult attorneys before the new training provisions take effect.
California Family Council has encouraged religious employers to begin examining their options rather than waiting until the mandate becomes effective.
The organization also plans to assist individuals seeking accommodations from portions of existing training programs that they believe conflict with their religious convictions.
The broader debate comes amid several years of disagreements over California policies involving parental rights, gender identity and religious freedom.
Conservative and religious advocacy groups have challenged policies governing how public schools respond when students express a gender identity different from their sex assigned at birth.
One dispute involves whether schools must notify parents when children request certain changes in names, pronouns or other gender-related accommodations.
California policies addressing those issues have drawn criticism from officials in other states, with opponents arguing that parents should have greater access to information affecting their children’s education and well-being.
Supporters of student privacy protections have argued that schools must also consider circumstances in which disclosure could expose a student to harm.
Those disagreements involve legal questions separate from AB 1803, but they help explain why religious organizations are closely examining the new workplace training requirements.
California has also adopted policies limiting cooperation with certain out-of-state investigations involving reproductive health services and gender-related medical care.
Those measures have generated disputes over interstate legal authority, particularly when medical services permitted in California are restricted elsewhere.
The state’s insurance requirements for gender-related medical treatment have likewise drawn objections from religious and conservative organizations.
Other controversies have involved policies governing transgender participation in school athletics.
California’s approach to athletic eligibility and participation has been challenged by individuals who argue that sex-based categories should determine access to female sports competitions.
Those disputes intensified after transgender athletes participated in girls’ track and field championship events, prompting disagreements about competitive fairness and the application of existing state policies.
The treatment of transgender prisoners has also been contested, particularly regarding housing assignments in women’s correctional facilities.
Former prison employees and advocacy groups have raised concerns about the placement of transgender inmates and the implications for inmate safety and privacy.
Those matters are governed by separate laws and administrative policies and do not establish how AB 1803 will be implemented.
They nevertheless form part of the broader policy environment in which California’s new anti-hate speech training requirement is being debated.
For religious organizations, the immediate concern is more specific: whether employees can be required to complete training that characterizes certain expressions of religious belief as workplace harassment.
For state officials, the legislation addresses how employers educate workers about conduct directed at people with characteristics protected by discrimination laws.
The California Civil Rights Department already maintains authority to investigate workplace discrimination and enforce relevant employment protections.
Under the amended statute, covered employers will be responsible for ensuring that their training programs include the additional anti-hate speech material.
Employers may use appropriate private training providers or state-developed resources, subject to existing legal requirements.
The measure does not establish an independent agency with authority to punish private citizens merely for expressing unpopular opinions.
Nor does it create a general legal definition of hate speech applicable to communications outside the workplace.
Its principal legal effect is to expand the content of mandatory workplace harassment prevention training.
However, the absence of a precise definition of hate speech remains central to concerns about how the instruction will be developed and administered.
The First Amendment generally protects speech from government restrictions based solely on its offensive or controversial content.
At the same time, federal and state employment laws prohibit certain discriminatory conduct and harassment in workplaces.
Courts have distinguished between constitutionally protected expression and conduct that violates workplace civil rights protections.
Whether government-mandated training improperly compels expression or conflicts with religious protections would require analysis of the actual training requirements and their application.
California Family Council has argued that the legislation creates a potential conflict by requiring employers to teach workers how to identify statements that vilify or humiliate people based on protected characteristics.
The organization’s position is that the language could encompass sincerely held religious beliefs, depending on how training providers explain it.
Supporters of the legislation have presented the requirement as an extension of existing measures intended to prevent discrimination and harassment.
The final text includes language allowing employers to satisfy the requirement through instruction focused on unlawful harassment and abusive conduct based on protected characteristics.
That provision may prove important as employers develop compliance programs.
It also distinguishes the measure from a broadly worded prohibition on speech that could operate independently of existing workplace harassment law.
The legislation’s implementation date provides time for further guidance from California officials.
Employers covered by the training requirement will need to determine whether their current programs already address the relevant subjects or require revisions.
Religious institutions will need to assess their status under existing employer exemptions and any guidance issued before January 2028.
Employees with objections based on sincerely held religious beliefs may seek legal advice concerning available protections and accommodation procedures.
Additional disputes could arise if a covered employer requires instruction that an employee believes conflicts with religious obligations.
Those disagreements would depend on the specific circumstances rather than the mere existence of the legislation.
California Family Council has indicated that it intends to continue opposing the measure while preparing resources for religious organizations and employees.
Burt described the legislation as an expansion of state authority over workplace expression and maintained that religious convictions should remain protected.
The law’s supporters, meanwhile, have emphasized preventing harassment and ensuring that workers understand protections related to race, religion, sex, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity.
As California approaches the January 2028 implementation deadline, the practical effects of AB 1803 will depend on how employers incorporate the required instruction into existing training programs and how questions concerning religious exemptions are resolved.
The law is already enacted, but its additional training requirement has not yet taken effect.
For now, the central legal question remains whether and under what circumstances nonprofit religious employers must comply with the amended training statute, alongside broader concerns about protecting religious expression while enforcing workplace anti-harassment protections.
Those questions are likely to remain the focus of advocacy efforts and potential legal disputes as California prepares to implement the new requirement.
Original article
Comments