Follow us on LinkedIn to see future News.
January 21, 2025
Update: On September 30, 2025, Judge Daniel J. Calabretta of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of California Senate Bill 399, which prohibits employers from holding “captive audience meetings” – i.e., meetings to communicate their opinions on religious or political matters, including union representation. The court concluded that the National Labor Relations Act likely preempts the law and that the law is a “content-based regulation of speech that cannot withstand strict scrutiny.” Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-03798-DJC (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2025).
California joined a growing number of states when it enacted the Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act (Act), which prohibits employers from holding meetings to communicate their opinions on religious or political matters, including union representation (commonly referred to as “captive audience meetings”).
The Act’s Prohibitions
Employers cannot subject an employee to discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or any other adverse action because the employee declines to attend or participate in a “captive audience meeting” or communications with the employer about religious or political matters.
Political or Religious Matters
The Act broadly defines political matters as matters relating to elections for political office, political parties, legislation, regulation, and the decision to join or support any political party or labor organization. The Act also broadly defines religious matters as matters relating to religious affiliation and practice and the decision to join or support any religious organization or association.
Exemptions
The Act does not apply to educational institutions that require students or instructors to attend lectures on political or religious matters that are part of the regular coursework at the institution; or employer-required training to comply with the employer’s legal obligations, including those under civil rights laws and occupational safety and health laws.
The Act also does not prohibit an employer from communicating information that the employer is required by law to communicate; information that is necessary for employees to perform their jobs; and information from a public employer related to its policy or any law or regulation that the public employer is responsible for administering.
Penalties
Violations of the Act come with civil penalties of $500 per employee per violation, and employees also may pursue civil actions seeking damages (including punitive damages) or injunctive relief.
Legal Challenges
The Act became effective on January 1, 2025, and already faces legal challenges. Specifically, in late December 2024, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Restaurant Association filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Act. See California Chamber of Commerce et al. v. Robert Bonta et al., No. 2:24-cv-03798 (E.D.Cal.). In the lawsuit, these two business groups allege that the Act interferes with employers’ constitutional free speech and assembly rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The business groups further allege that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts the Act. The groups allege that the National Labor Relations Board’s decision in November 2024 regarding captive audience meetings – which outlines the conditions under which employers may communicate with employees about unionization – demonstrates that this topic is one for federal regulators.
Specifically, on November 13, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) issued a decision in Amazon.com Services LLC, ruling that an employer violates the NLRA by requiring employees under threat of discipline or discharge to attend meetings in which the employer expresses its views on unionization. The Board explained that such meetings violate the NLRA because they have a reasonable tendency to interfere with and coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights (Section 7 of the NLRA protects employees’ rights to self-organization, collective bargaining, concerted activities, and refraining from activities). However, the Board made clear that an employer may lawfully hold meetings with workers to express its views on unionization so long as workers are provided reasonable advance notice of (1) the subject of any such meeting; (2) that attendance is voluntary with no adverse consequences for failure to attend; and (3) that no attendance records of the meeting will be kept.
We will monitor the California lawsuit and provide updates at the beginning of this article.
California Employer Takeaways
Review your policies and practices regarding workplace communications and consider making any meetings or communications regarding political, religious, unionization, or similar topics voluntary. Furthermore, train management on the risks associated with communicating with employees on these issues.
The author of this article, Patricia Tsipras, is a member of the Bar of Pennsylvania. This article is designed to provide one perspective regarding recent legal developments, and is not intended to serve as legal advice in Pennsylvania, California, or any other jurisdiction, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship with any reader of the article where one does not exist. Always consult an attorney with specific legal issues.
