In early 2025 Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1803 a measure that will become operational on January 1, 2028. The statute expands the state’s current harassment-training requirement for any employer with five or more workers, compelling them to insert a module that teaches employees how to spot, report, and respond to speech that vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred against people protected by law. Those protected classes now include sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, and other federally recognized categories. While the bill does not add a separate training hour, it insists that the new content be woven into the existing curriculum, which is already delivered biennially.
The California Civil Rights Department has already posted a sample slide deck, defining gender identity as an individual’s internal sense of gender, which may be male, female, a blend of both, neither, or non-binary. By presenting this definition as a factual baseline, the state aims to give employers a clear reference point for what constitutes hate speech in the workplace. The legislation’s proponents argue that without this clarification, workers could be left vulnerable to hostile environments that the current training fails to address.
Faith leaders argue the mandate imposes a government-approved worldview
Representatives from the California Family Council and a coalition of traditional churches have voiced strong objections, insisting that the law lacks a concrete definition of hate speech and provides no explicit exemption for matters of conscience. Greg Burt, the council’s vice-president, told legislators that “you cannot regulate what you cannot define,” warning that the rule could force employers to discipline staff for expressing doctrinal positions on marriage and sexuality. Pastors such as Dr. Paul Chappell and Jack Hibbs have echoed this sentiment, describing the bill as a “stretch” by liberal lawmakers designed to marginalize conservative religious viewpoints.
Critics also point out that the bill’s language does not carve out an exception for nonprofit religious entities, even though California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act traditionally excludes churches from the definition of an employer. This ambiguity, they argue, could push faith-based schools, hospitals, and charities into a legal grey zone where they might be compelled to alter internal teachings or risk lawsuits for alleged discrimination. The council has advised congregations to seek legal counsel rather than assume they are automatically exempt.
LGBTQ advocates and the state defend the requirement
Supporters, led by Equality California, contend that existing harassment training leaves a significant gap concerning bias against sexual orientation and gender identity. They argue that the added module simply fills that void, providing employees with tools to recognize subtle forms of discrimination that can erode workplace cohesion. Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal, a co-sponsor of the bill, emphasized that “California does not tolerate hate speech, and nor should its workplaces,” positioning the law as a preventative measure rather than a punitive one.
Legal scholars note that the statute aligns with broader trends in state-level civil-rights enforcement, where courts have upheld employer obligations to curb harassment rooted in protected characteristics. Recent judicial decisions, such as the temporary injunction protecting Defending Education members from university discipline for misgendering, illustrate the tension between free-speech claims and anti-discrimination policies. While civil-rights groups view AB 1803 as a necessary evolution, religious organizations remain wary that the undefined scope of hate speech could become a tool for curbing sincerely held faith-based convictions.
