SHRM Opposes California Bill that Would Weaken ‘Captive-Audience’ Meetings

SHRM and the California State Council of SHRM (CalSHRM) oppose California State Senate Bill (SB) 399, saying it would chill employer speech via “captive-audience” meetings.

SB 399 would prohibit both public and private employers in California from taking an adverse employment action against an employee because the employee declines to attend an employer-sponsored meeting, or affirmatively declines to participate in, receive, or listen to communications regarding the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters. Political matters include unionization.

While SB 399 aims to address workplace incivility, the legislation in its current form would have significant unintended consequences—including stifling conversations that promote civility, wrote Emily M. Dickens, J.D., SHRM chief of staff, head of government affairs, and corporate secretary, and Michael S. Kalt, J.D., government affairs director for CalSHRM, in a June 5 letter to State Sen. Aisha Wahab, the bill’s author.

“The overly broad language used in the bill pertaining to ‘employer-sponsored meetings’ and ‘participating in, receiving, or listening to any communications’ creates significant uncertainty for California employers that seek to create open, civil dialogues with employees,” Dickens and Kalt wrote.

“We would also like to emphasize that existing California law under 2023 Cal. Lab. Code Section 1101 and 2023 C. Lab. Code Section 1102 and federal law under the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] already safeguard employees from employer coercion related to political and religious matters,” they added. “In its current form, however, SB 399 would create confusion and legal redundancy, which could unintentionally cause compliance challenges for HR professionals and employers.”

Following recent amendments to SB 399, SHRM is also concerned that this legislation may expose employers to potentially burdensome litigation costs by enabling a private right of action to pursue punitive damage claims.

Similar Laws Elsewhere

The California bill is akin to recent laws in other states that restrict so-called captive-audience meetings with employees about their statutory labor rights, including the right to refrain from forming unions.

In May, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis vetoed a similar bill, HB 24-1260, saying he had concerns “with the legislation’s broad and uncertain implications for employers and employees, as well as legal concerns.” He went on to mention that the definitions of political and religious matters “will cause confusion and are insufficient in addressing employers’ day-to-day operational needs” and that this legislation could “chill free speech.”

Two months later, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed a bill that bans mandatory attendance at company meetings used to try to persuade workers that they would be better off without unions. The law goes into effect Jan. 1, 2025.

Meanwhile, Hawaii’s Captive Audience Prohibition Act went into effect July 2. Hawaii joined several states—including Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon—that have enacted laws restricting employers from requiring employees to attend meetings that concern the employer’s views on politics, religion, and similar matters.

Captive-audience laws in Illinois, Connecticut, and Minnesota have been challenged by business groups as an unlawful infringement on employers’ right to freedom of speech. Opponents of the laws also argue that they are pre-empted by the NLRA.

In 2022, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo announced in a memo that she will ask the board to find captive-audience meetings unlawful. However, this argument runs against decades of precedent.

SHRM urges its members in California to contact their state representatives in opposition to SB 399.