The City of Chicago’s expanded rules on sexual harassment prevention training went into effect this month. All Chicago employers earlier had to provide two hours of training for supervisors and one hour for all other employees annually. Now, Chicago has increased these requirements adding an additional hour of “bystander intervention” sexual harassment training annually and made certain other changes.
It’s as if city bureaucrats went out of their way to frustrate employers who have even the most obvious initial questions about the rule. JD Supra wrote this month on those absurdities:
The city ordinance says that employers can use the training module created by the Illinois Department of Human Rights as part of the IHRA’s sexual harassment prevention training, but that creates several inconsistencies.
First, it is unclear whether the training that employers are required to provide to comply with Illinois law also complies with the Ordinance.
Second, the State of Illinois’ training module is nothing more than a self-executing PowerPoint slide show that simply narrates word-for-word the slides created by the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR). The module takes about 40 minutes to listen to/watch, which would not be compliant with the Ordinance’s one-hour requirement without some additional enhancement to fill the remaining time.
Third, the IDHR’s module provides the definition of sexual harassment found in Illinois law, which does not include the newly added portion to the City’s definition pertaining to “sexual misconduct.”
Fourth, the State of Illinois training module does not include any instructions for filing claims with the Chicago Commission on Human Relations (CCHR), which is included in the City’s sample training module
The problems continue, as described by JD Supra. The city’s training module suggests requirements that are not even in the ordinance and, therefore, cannot be enforced as law. Examples, from JD Supra:
-
-
- The City’s training module mentions a requirement for employers to also provide sexual harassment prevention training to independent contractors working on-site, but the Ordinance contains no such requirement.
- The City’s training module also suggests that there is strict liability for managerial employees; but the actual Ordinance provides only that an employer shall be liable for sexual harassment by non-employees or non-managerial and non-supervisory employees if the employer became aware of the conduct and failed to take reasonable corrective measures and does not address liability standards for managerial employees.
-
Other, substantive changes to the ordinance are described in the JD Supra column as well as a National Law Review column here.
Training, of course, must be paid time at the employer’s expense, which raises a more fundamental issue with the ordinance and similar employer mandates.
Let’s assume that the training is effective (a big assumption). It’s therefore good for society at large so why are employers singled out to bear the cost?
Just slap another unfunded mandate on government’s favorite beast of burden – employers. That governmental habit has made being an employer one big pain in the neck. It’s particularly overwhelming for smaller businesses and new entrepreneurs trying to understand wage and hour rules, disability accommodation requirements, paid vacation, insurance, other benefits, unemployment insurance and much, much more. We’ve stuck employers with the burden of handling all of that, and much of it should not be at their cost.
The worries and burdens imposed by so many unfunded mandates for employers has an obvious consequence – fewer jobs and flight by employers to locations that try to make life easier.
Alerts Sign-up