Court Raises Questions About California’s Captive-Audience Law

A federal appeals court decision challenging California’s restrictions on mandatory workplace meetings could have significant implications for employers seeking to communicate with workers about unionization and other sensitive issues. However, competing federal labor law precedent means employers should proceed cautiously before changing their practices.

In California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed California’s captive-audience law, which restricts employers from requiring employees to attend meetings concerning religious or political matters, including union organizing. The law, enacted through Senate Bill 399 and effective from Jan. 1, 2025, prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who decline to participate in certain employer-sponsored meetings. SHRM opposed the bill, saying it would chill employer speech.  

The ruling has raised questions about the extent to which states can regulate employer speech and whether similar restrictions elsewhere could face constitutional challenges.

“Bonta is a very important decision,” said Phillip Wilson, CEO of LRI Consulting Services, Inc. in Broken Arrow, Okla. “The Ninth Circuit found California's restrictions on so-called captive-audience meetings violates an employer's First Amendment right to free speech.”

Wilson noted that the court also rejected several arguments used to justify similar state restrictions, which have become increasingly common in recent years.

Toolkit: Preparing for the Possibility of Union Organizing 

Federal Labor Law Complicates the Picture

Although the ruling represents a significant development for employers, it does not necessarily mean mandatory meetings about unionization are free from legal restrictions.

In November 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in Amazon.com Services LLC that employers generally violate federal labor law when they compel employees to attend meetings in which management expresses its views about unionization under threat of discipline or discharge.

The decision reversed decades of board precedent permitting such meetings under certain circumstances. It also established a framework under which employers could hold voluntary meetings about unionization, provided employees receive appropriate assurances that attendance is optional and declining will not result in adverse consequences.

Wilson emphasized that the NLRB precedent remains an important consideration for California employers, even as its legal validity faces challenges. “While the state law is no longer valid, the NLRB also restricted mandatory meetings in Amazon Services LLC in 2024 and that remains in place for now,” he said.

Podcast: Gen Z, Unions, and the New Era of Labor Relations

Unanswered Questions for Employers

The Ninth Circuit’s decision also raises broader questions about the future of captive-audience restrictions beyond California.

“Numerous uncertainties remain,” Wilson said, pointing to the potential implications for other states within the Ninth Circuit and whether federal appellate courts elsewhere might adopt similar reasoning. He also questioned how the ruling might affect the NLRB’s existing restrictions, particularly given what he described as overlapping legal justifications.

Another complication involves whether parties challenging these laws can establish standing to sue. Wilson argued that limited state enforcement has made it difficult for opponents to obtain judicial review. 

“The biggest problem with these cases so far is getting a court to find standing,” he said.

He pointed to litigation involving Minnesota’s captive-audience restrictions, where the state attorney general’s commitment not to enforce the law affected the legal challenge.

What Employers Should Do Next

For California employers, the central takeaway is that the legal landscape remains unsettled. Even where state restrictions face constitutional challenges, federal labor law can create separate obligations and potential liability.

“California employers still must be mindful of the current NLRB precedent,” Wilson said. “However, that is being challenged as well.”

Until the competing interpretations are resolved, Wilson recommended that employers consult legal counsel before requiring employees to attend meetings about unionization.

“As a practical matter always seek legal advice about how to handle employee meetings while these competing interpretations are in play,” he said.