California Senate Bill SB303

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/10/25
• Refer: 2/19/25
• Report Pass: 4/23/25
• Refer: 4/23/25
• Report Pass: 4/30/25
• Engrossed: 5/28/25
• Refer: 6/5/25
• Refer: 7/2/25
• Report Pass: 7/9/25
• Enrolled: 9/2/25
• Chaptered: 10/1/25
• Passed: 10/1/25

Caption

An act to add Section 12940.2 to the Government Code, relating to discrimination.

Summary

SB 303 adds Section 12940.2 to the Government Code to clarify that an employee’s good-faith assessment, testing, admission, or acknowledgment of their own personal bias, when solicited or required as part of a bias mitigation training, does not by itself constitute unlawful discrimination. The bill also states legislative intent to encourage employers to offer bias mitigation trainings and to affirm that such trainings are not, standing alone, unlawful under California law. The bill defines “bias mitigation training” broadly to include employer-provided education and activities aimed at helping employees understand, recognize, or acknowledge conscious and unconscious thought processes and their impacts. It expressly includes strategies such as bias assessments or tests, analysis of those assessments, workshops, toolkits, and tracking efforts to mitigate or eliminate bias. In effect, the measure creates a statutory safe harbor for certain training-related exercises that might otherwise be challenged as discriminatory.

Impact

SB 303 affects the California Fair Employment and Housing Act framework by adding a new Government Code provision that limits when bias-training-related employee disclosures or self-assessments can be treated as unlawful discrimination. It does not create a new enforcement program or appropriation, but it provides employers and employees with clearer legal protection around workplace bias mitigation practices, while leaving the Civil Rights Department’s broader authority over discrimination complaints intact.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have generally favorable support, as reflected in its passage through both chambers and final chaptering by the Governor. Vote margins were mostly positive, including several unanimous committee or floor votes, though one Senate floor vote showed some opposition. Overall, the legislative record suggests broad agreement with the bill’s purpose of protecting employer-led bias training from being treated as discriminatory in itself.

Contention

The main point of contention is the relationship between bias mitigation training and discrimination law: supporters view the bill as a clarification that encourages training and reduces legal uncertainty, while critics likely worry that such trainings can pressure employees into making personal admissions or assessments that could be misused or viewed as coercive. The recorded votes show limited but real opposition at one stage, indicating some disagreement over whether the bill appropriately balances anti-discrimination protections with employer training practices.