This state by state comparison of sexual harassment laws lists how each state's sexual harassment law differs from Federal.
Sexual harassment law can be confusing. There’s federal law and then state and sometimes even more laws in counties and municipalities. We put together a list of the laws in every state that differ significantly from federal law to help make it easier for you.
The Arizona Civil Rights Act protects Arizona employees from sexual harassment. The Act has the same provisions as federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and Arizona courts often look to federal precedent when deciding their cases.
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects California employees from sexual harassment.
The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission advises employers to train both supervisors and non-supervisors on sexual harassment.
The specific requirements of Maine law on posters, notices and training can be found here.
While Maryland does not mandate sexual harassment training, the Maryland Commission on Human Relations advises that employee training is a positive factor for employers when the commission analyzes liability in harassment complaints.
Massachusetts state requirements from the mass.gov website.
Massachusetts law encourages employers to provide training for both supervisory and non-supervisory employees in both new hire and ongoing training programs.
Sexual harassment definitions and guidance from the New Jersey Civil Rights Division.
The state of New Jersey does not have required sexual harassment training, however, the New Jersey Supreme Court provided an analysis of what policies and procedures companies needed to undertake to avoid or lessen liability in sexual harassment cases in their ruling in Gaines v. Bellino, 801 A.2d 322 (N.J. 2002). The court included sexual harassment training for supervisors and added the importance of training for all employees. Guidance from the Supreme Court is used in decisions by the Division on Civil Rights and by lower courts in sexual harassment cases. Therefore, although training is not mandated it is highly recommended for companies who wish to lessen their liability in sexual harassment litigation.
Sexual harassment fact sheet published by the North Dakota Department of Labor.
Although Ohio law does not require sexual harassment training, the Ohio Administrative code advises that employers express strong disapproval of sexual harassment, educate employees on complaint procedures, and develop methods to sensitize all employees on illegal sexual harassment. Sexual harassment training is the most effective way to follow this guidance.
Several pieces of legislation are being discussed in the Pennsylvania state legislature that could mandate sexual harassment training for every employee in the state. Current law stops short of requiring training, however, the law states that employers should take steps to discuss sexual harassment with employees, detail employee rights under the law (Including the right to file a complaint with their employer, the Pennsylvania Human Relations commission or the EEOC.) and to sensitize all employees about sexual harassment. The most effective way to accomplish this is through sexual harassment training.
While Rhode Island stops short of mandating training, the state encourages training both supervisory and non-supervisory employees within one year of hire on the content of the Rhode Island Commission on Human Right’s Guidelines for Sexual Harassment.
Definitions, guidance and a sample sexual harassment policy for South Dakota employers by the South Dakota Division of Human Rights.
The Texas Commission on Human Rights Act was codified under Labor Code Chapter 21 and prohibits sexual harassment in Texas workplaces. Texas law is almost identical to federal law and even states that its purpose is to executive federal anti-discrimination laws.
The Utah Anti-discrimination Act prohibits sexual harassment in Utah Workplaces.
On July 1st, 2018 Bill H707 goes into effect bringing Vermont’s employee protections and preventative efforts to among the best in the country. The Act entitled “An Act Relating to the Prevention of Sexual Harassment” adds expanded employee coverage and a slew of new of new requirements for employers to the Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act.
Most of the provisions in Vermont law are not much different than federal law, but Vermont requires a lot of what the EEOC strongly suggests and expands on the Number of employees covered by federal sexual harassment law.
The following are the Vermont provisions not in federal law.
In Bill H707 (2018)
Provisions in pre-existing Vermont sexual harassment laws that differ from federal law.
State of Vermont Guide on Sexual Harassment.
Guidance from the state of Vermont includes training every employee on sexual harassment in the first year of employment and specific training for supervisors who take and respond to complaints. While training isn’t required, this guidance is encouraged by both Vermont and federal law. When an employer faces a sexual harassment suit, training is a critical factor in a legal defense. A training program for all employees helps prove the employer is serious about preventing sexual harassment and in cases of hostile environment harassment may help avoid or mitigate liability.
On June 7th, 2018 several new sexual harassment laws went into effect that solidified Washington as a leader in the country for sexual harassment prevention.
SB5996 and SB6313 took aim at pre-employment agreements.
Like every state, most of the law in Washington was derived from federal law and even with the additions Washington has made, the law is still mostly identical to its federal counterpart. The Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits sexual harassment in the state and even before the recent legal additions, Washington was already considered one of the most progressive states in its harassment prevention strategies. Despite, the similarities, the WLAD has broader coverage than federal law.
Aspects of Washington law that differs from federal law.
While Washington doesn’t explicitly mandate sexual harassment training, training is encouraged and listed as a vital part of harassment prevention. The EEOC lists training as one its five core principles of sexual harassment prevention. Organizations who conduct training not only prevent more harassment, they may avoid liability or limit damages in a lawsuit based on hostile environment harassment.
Sexual harassment information section of the Wisconsin Civil Rights Bureau.
Although Wisconsin law stops short of requiring sexual harassment training, it recommends training for all employees along with periodic reminders about harassment. Guidance in state law is a huge consideration when determining employer liability in court and by the Wisconsin Office of Civil Rights in investigations. Therefore, any company who wishes to avoid or lessen liability should provide sexual harassment training for its employees.