Judge blocks California law on political, religious speech at work meetings

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — The California Chamber of Commerce succeeded Tuesday in having a state law put on hold that institutes punishment if bosses penalize employees for failing to attend mandatory meetings when certain subjects are discussed.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta ruled that Senate Bill 399 — which the chamber said limits employers from talking about religious or political issues — is preempted under the National Labor Relations Act and violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

Additionally, the judge agreed with the chamber’s arguments that the law is a content-based regulation of speech that falls before a standard of strict scrutiny.

His ruling temporarily pauses the law’s enforcement.

The law — called the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act — prohibits employers from terminating or threatening to fire workers, or other forms of discrimination, if they decline to attend an employer meeting that includes a religious or political subject. Political matters include labor organizations.

“In particular, plaintiffs are concerned about the inclusion of ‘the decision to join or support any … labor organization’ within the list of topics included within the definition of ‘political matters,’” Calabretta said in his ruling. “Plaintiffs allege that in enacting such a statute, the Legislature has placed its thumb on the scale in favor of labor.”

In his ruling, Calabretta examined different legal pathways through which the National Labor Relations Act could preempt the state law.

The chamber argued that the National Labor Relations Board, not California, has the power to preempt the state law. Also, it said the law hampered employees’ opportunities to learn about the positives and negatives of unionizing.

The state countered by saying the law involves subjects strongly rooted in local feeling and responsibility and that the judge couldn’t decide Congress withheld the power to act from the states.

“However, the fact that this law expressly targets communications related to the decision to join a union renders the deeply held feelings exception inapplicable,” Calabretta said. “Significantly, defendants do not point to any California laws protecting other populations from captive meetings.”

The judge also examined another legal road to possible preemption. Under the path, states and local governments can’t impose restrictions on “economic weapons of self-help,” like a cooperative that pools resources and increases access to goods, unless Congress allowed it.

Calabretta noted that Congress has clearly said that states can’t regulate non-coercive labor speech by an employer. Additionally, the act was amended to point to an employee’s right to refuse union membership, implying a right to get information against unionizing.

The law’s history shows lawmakers worried about employees in mandatory meetings. But Calabretta said that the law encompasses more than that, applying to any communication involving the employer’s opinion on politics or religion.

“By not limiting penalties to coercive speech, SB 399 risks interfering with employers’ statutory and First Amendment rights to express their opinions on whether or not to join a labor organization, or from otherwise engaging in noncoercive speech,” the judge added.

Pivoting to First Amendment arguments, Calabretta said the law’s purpose is to protect employees who face mandatory meetings and punishment if they decline to attend. While the law doesn’t stop employers from talking about politics and religion, it affects employers who do talk about those topics.

“Defendants are correct that SB 399 encapsulates two discrete acts: hosting a meeting or other form of mandatory communication and sanctioning employees for not attending or receiving the communication,” the judge said. “But … enforcing SB 399 would require referencing the content of the employer’s speech in determining whether the adverse employment action was proper.”

The judge said the state pointed to no argument that employees have a right to privacy in the workplace that’s similar to the privacy right an abortion patient has in their home or a doctor’s office.

Attorneys in the case couldn’t be reached for comment as of publication time.