What if a manager admits, in a company bias workshop, that they tend to favor people who went to their own college? Starting January 1, 2026, California law says that kind of good-faith admission isn’t, by itself, unlawful discrimination. SB 303 added Government Code section 12940.2 to protect employees’ self-assessments made during bias mitigation training. The protection is real but narrow, and an employer should still expect training records to come up in discovery when a discrimination claim is filed.
What did the Legislature enact?
SB 303 (Stats. 2025, ch. 216) added Government Code section 12940.2, effective January 1, 2026. The operative sentence is in subdivision (a):
“Notwithstanding any other law, an employee’s assessment, testing, admission, or acknowledgment of their own personal bias that was made in good faith and solicited or required as part of a bias mitigation training does not, by itself, constitute unlawful discrimination.”
Subdivision (b) states two goals: to “Encourage employers to conduct bias mitigation trainings,” and to “Affirm that conducting a bias mitigation training does not, by itself, constitute unlawful discrimination.”
Which programs qualify as bias mitigation training?
The definition is specific. Under subdivision (c)(1), it means “bias mitigation or bias elimination training, education, and activities provided by an employer for the purpose of educating employees on understanding, recognizing, or acknowledging the influence of conscious and unconscious thought processes and their associated impacts.”
There’s a second requirement that’s easy to miss. The same paragraph says the training “shall include implementing specific strategies to mitigate the impact of employees’ personal biases.” Subdivision (c)(2) lists examples of specific strategies, including “assessing or testing for personal bias, analyzing bias assessments or tests, conducting bias training, conducting workshops, using toolkits, and tracking bias mitigation and elimination.”
A one-hour video with no follow-through may not fit that definition. A program that asks employees to assess their own biases and then gives them concrete ways to reduce those biases in hiring and reviews is closer to what the statute describes.
How was this handled before SB 303?
There was no statute on point. Training materials are a common discovery request in discrimination cases, and an employee’s written or recorded statement about their own biases could be offered as evidence of how they made a decision. That risk gave employers a reason to drop self-assessment exercises. The Legislature’s stated purpose in subdivision (b) is to remove that disincentive.
California already required sexual harassment prevention training for employers with five or more employees under Government Code section 12950.1, which the firm covers in its post on failure-to-prevent claims and the training mandate. SB 303 doesn’t add a bias training requirement. It protects employers that choose to offer one.
What does the new rule protect, and what doesn’t it?
Three limits in the text matter in litigation.
“By itself.” The statute says an admission doesn’t “by itself” constitute discrimination. It doesn’t say the admission is inadmissible, privileged, or irrelevant. A plaintiff may still argue that a manager’s training statement, combined with other evidence, helps show a biased motive in a specific decision. The statute takes away the argument that the admission alone is the violation.
“Made in good faith.” The statute covers statements made in good faith. A remark made in a training session that’s really a slur, a threat, or a statement of intent to treat someone differently isn’t the kind of self-assessment the statute describes, and it could create harassment exposure of its own.
“Solicited or required as part of a bias mitigation training.” Under the text, statements made outside the training, such as in a later email chain or a hallway conversation, aren’t covered. Neither are statements made in a session that doesn’t meet the definition in subdivision (c).
| Situation | Does § 12940.2 address it? |
|---|---|
| Employee’s good-faith self-assessment during a qualifying training | Yes. Not, by itself, unlawful discrimination |
| The employer’s decision to conduct a bias training | Yes. Not, by itself, unlawful discrimination |
| A training statement offered with other evidence of a biased decision | No. The statute speaks only to the statement by itself |
| Statements made outside the training | No |
| Bad-faith remarks or slurs during a session | No. The protection requires good faith |
That last row is why training design matters. A facilitator who knows how to steer a session away from personal attacks protects both the participants and the company.
What should an employer do about its training program now?
An employer that runs or plans a bias mitigation program can line it up with the statute’s text, and an employer facing a claim should know where its training records are.
- Write down the program’s purpose and the specific strategies it uses, tracking the language of subdivision (c), so the company can show the training fits the definition.
- Decide on purpose what training records the company keeps, and apply the same retention rule to every session.
- When a discrimination claim arrives, put the training materials, attendance records, and any self-assessments for the decision-makers under a litigation hold, along with the personnel file and the decision documents.
- Identify the decision-makers and whether they attended training, and don’t take any action against the claimant that could look like retaliation.
- Talk to a lawyer before producing training records in discovery, since objections and protective orders may apply to some of them.
How training records fit into a discrimination defense is part of what the firm’s employment defense attorneys in California page describes.
If a discrimination claim points to your company’s training
If your company has received a discrimination charge or lawsuit that relies on statements from a bias training, whether those statements fit Government Code section 12940.2 usually shapes how much weight they carry. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims involving workplace discrimination. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is Government Code section 12940.2, added by SB 303 (Stats. 2025, ch. 216).
This post is general information about California and federal employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.