Staff ReportsCalifornia Democrats are pushing AB 1803 up the Assembly ladder, and it is worth watching. The bill would add an “anti‑hate speech” module to the mandatory workplace harassment training every employer with five or more employees must give. The bill has cleared key committees and was ordered to third reading in the Assembly — meaning a full floor vote may be next.
What AB 1803 actually does
AB 1803, authored by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal and coauthored by Assemblymembers Corey A. Jackson and Rick Chavez Zbur, would fold anti‑hate‑speech training into the state’s existing sexual‑harassment and abusive‑conduct training. Under current law, supervisors get two hours and nonsupervisors one hour every two years; AB 1803 would add content about “hate speech” to that mix. The bill gives the state Civil Rights Department the job of administering the requirement — but the bill does not define “hate speech.”
Why the lack of a definition matters
Here’s the problem in plain English: you cannot fairly punish or regulate speech if you do not say what speech you mean. That’s not just a rule of common sense — it’s the First Amendment. Supreme Court precedent makes clear there is no broad “hate speech” exception to free speech protections, so shoehorning vague speech rules into mandatory workplace training invites confusion, censorship, and lawsuits. Opponents rightly say, “You cannot regulate what you cannot define.” Employers will be stuck guessing where training ends and unconstitutional coercion begins.
Practical fallout: costs, confusion, and the nanny state
Beyond the constitutional mess, AB 1803 creates real costs. Small businesses that meet the five‑employee threshold would need revised training, new recordkeeping, and more instructor time. Human resources teams will be stuck offering guidance on a loaded term with no legal definition, and lawyers will be busy defending overreaching discipline. And let’s not pretend mandatory trainings reliably fix bad behavior — studies show mixed results. So taxpayers and small employers get more paperwork, and employees get more lecturing, while the real problem of targeted crimes or threats remains a policing and enforcement issue, not a moral‑izing checklist.
If the goal is safer workplaces, lawmakers should write clear rules that respect the Constitution and help employers stop real harassment and threats. AB 1803 as drafted is a political flourish that hands bureaucrats more discretion and gives bosses vague cover. The Assembly should either define terms clearly and narrow the scope, or let employers and courts handle real harassment cases the way the Constitution intends. Otherwise, California will have another law that sounds good on a press release and causes headaches in the break room.
