California Proposes Mandatory Workplace 'Hate Speech' Training Despite Unclear Definition

"Hate speech" remains notoriously difficult to define, often serving as a subjective label for harsh words. While frequently used to describe comments people dislike, the term typically refers to expression that, though unpleasant, is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and state speech protections.

Yet California lawmakers are pressing forward with efforts to curb such speech in workplaces through legislation. Assembly Bill 1803, introduced by Assemblymembers Josh Lowenthal (D–Long Beach), Rick Chavez Zbur (D–Los Angeles), and co-authored by Assemblymember Corey Jackson (D–Moreno Valley), seeks to expand existing workplace training requirements to include anti-hate speech education.

Existing Workplace Training Requirements in California

Current California law mandates that employers with five or more employees provide:

• At least two hours of sexual harassment training for supervisors,
• At least one hour of training for all other employees,
• Training must be repeated every two years.

AB 1803 proposes adding anti-hate speech training as a component of these existing programs.

Supporters Advocate for Safer Workplaces

"AB 1803 is about making our workplaces safer, more respectful, and more inclusive for everyone. Hate speech has no place on the job, just as sexual harassment has no place on the job. By incorporating anti-hate speech training into existing sexual harassment prevention programs, we are building on a proven framework to address harmful behavior before it escalates."

Josh Lowenthal, Assemblymember (D–Long Beach)

Critics Question the Effectiveness of Mandated Training

Opponents argue that state-mandated training may be counterproductive. Research suggests that existing harassment training has limited effectiveness:

• In 2018, PBS’s Rhana Natour reported that "there’s little evidence that sexual harassment training works."
• A 2016 report by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) concluded that much of the training over the past 30 years has failed as a prevention tool, noting it often focuses on avoiding legal liability rather than fostering behavioral change.
• Research by Justine Tinkler, a sociologist at the University of Georgia, found that such training can reinforce traditional gender roles by portraying men as predators and women as victims.

Critics also highlight that "hate speech" is a politically charged term, often used to describe speech individuals simply dislike, making it nearly impossible to define in an actionable way under robust free speech protections.

California’s Bill Lacks a Definition of 'Hate Speech'

The California Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment has raised concerns about AB 1803’s lack of clarity:

"As drafted, AB 1803 does not define hate speech. Committee staff is not aware of a definition of hate speech in California law. Hate speech itself is not illegal but can violate employment law if it rises to an actionable level of workplace harassment or discrimination. Nevertheless, the author may wish to consider defining hate speech in the bill so as to give guidance to employers and the CRD [Civil Rights Department] since these entities will be developing the anti-hate speech training."

The committee suggests that without a clear definition, employers and the Civil Rights Department (CRD) may struggle to implement the training effectively.