‘Captive audience’ meetings still OK in California

A 2024 law banned employers from holding mandatory meetings in which political or religious views were conveyed. The law has been on hold since last year.(CN) — A California law banning employers from holding mandatory “all-hands” meetings in which political or religious views were conveyed will remain not in effect after the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction against its enforcement on Thursday.Passed in 2024, Senate Bill 399 prohibits a company from disciplining, or threatening to discipline, workers for choosing not to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or receive communications from the employer, “the purpose of which is to communicate the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters.”Three nonprofit business groups — the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association and the Western Growers Association — sued the state, arguing, among other things, the law impinges on employers’ First Amendment rights. They also said the National Labor Relations Act preempted the law.Last year, a federal judge agreed the law regulated speech content and issued a preliminary injunction, placing a temporary hold on it.In its appeal, California argued SB 399 regulates conduct, not speech — that is, it bans companies from forcing workers to listen to speech. But a three-judge panel disagreed.“It is true that SB 399 facially forbids only the act of ‘subject[ing], or threaten[ing] to subject, an employee’ to discipline for declining to attend certain meetings,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Tallman, a Bill Clinton appointee, in the ruling. “But the law only applies to employers who engage in expressive activity at those meetings: namely, ‘communicat[ing their] opinion.’ It does not, for example, prohibit taking adverse action against employees who decline to attend a meeting, the sole purpose of which was for employees to fill out their annual tax paperwork. It prohibits adverse action only when the meeting’s purpose was for the employer to engage in expressive activity. Thus, the First Amendment applies.”The panel also ruled the Western Growers Association had standing to bring about the lawsuit, since “its membersintend to engage in conduct that is arguably proscribed by SB 399: namely, holding ‘all-hands’ meetings to convey their opinions regarding political matters.”It did not reach an opinion on whether SB 399 is preempted by federal law.U.S. Circuit Judges Richard Paez, another Clinton appointee, and Mark Bennett, a Donald Trump appointee, rounded out the panel.Neither side’s attorneys responded to an email requesting a comment on the ruling.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads