ST. Paul, Minn. (CN) — Two Minnesota business organizations and an electrical contractor filed a challenge Tuesday against a state law barring employers from mandating their employees attend political or religious meetings, arguing that it infringes on their First Amendment rights and is preempted by federal labor law.
The disputed state law, passed by Minnesota's Democratic state government as part of a major labor bill in May 2023, prohibits employers from firing or otherwise disciplining employees for refusing to participate in employer-sponsored meetings — or listen to communications — relating to the employer's political opinions or religious beliefs.
New York and Maine also passed similar so-called “captive audience” laws in 2023, joining Connecticut, which passed one in 2022, and Oregon, where employers have been barred from requiring employees to listen to political speech since 2010.
In their complaint filed Tuesday, the Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, the National Federation of Independent Business and Laketown Electric Corp. argue those prohibitions unlawfully interfere with their efforts to stymie unionization drives.
“As an employer, nonunion contractor and member of MNABC, Laketown Electric has held meetings with and provided written and other communications to employees about ‘political issues’ when faced with union organizing efforts,” the plaintiffs say in their complaint. “Laketown Electric has required employees, including those who are not engaged in political advocacy, to attend these meetings. The purpose of some of these meetings and communications was to communicate Laketown Electric’s position and opinions on political matters."
“Laketown Electric believes Section 181.531 exposes it to financial liability, costs, and attorneys’ fees based on any meetings and communications concerning political issues that Laketown Electric conducts in the future,” the plaintiffs continue. “Laketown Electric believes it must either refrain from future meetings and communications concerning political issues or go forward with meetings and communications while exposing themselves to legal risk.”
That chilling effect, the plaintiffs say, would unconstitutionally prevent them from “sharing true facts with employees about the costs of unionization, such as employees’ need to pay dues for representation, unions’ interference with employer-employee relationships, unions’ prioritization of the collective over the individual employees, and the financial impacts on employers.”
They argue the state has no compelling interest in protecting employees from hearing their employers' opinions.
The plaintiffs also point to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), arguing that it preempts the state law.
“For over seventy years, and consistent with the First Amendment, the NLRA has protected the right of employers to express their views on unionization to their employees,” they say in the complaint. “The NLRA also prohibits statements and actions, including unlawful threats, which interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in exercise of their rights.”
The National Labor Relations Act specifically banned “captive audience” meetings when it was first passed in 1935, and in 2022 the National Labor Relations Board issued a memorandum stating that such meetings were violations of the Act. The “license to coerce” created by the Board’s prior conclusion that such meetings were permissible, Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said, “is an anomaly in labor law, inconsistent with the Act’s protection of employees’ free choice.”
The office of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who along with Department of Labor and Industry Commissioner Nicole Blissenbach is named as a defendant in the complaint, commented briefly on the case Wednesday morning.
"Attorney General Ellison will uphold his duty to defend the constitutionality of Minnesota laws," Ellison press secretary Brian Evans said. "We will respond further in court."
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Creepy RA banned April 10, 2024 -
