The Silenced Meeting: Counseling Clients on California’s “Captive Audience” Ban and Unionization Risks

A Legal Maelstrom—Navigating the Collision of State, Federal, and Constitutional Law

California’s employment law landscape has long been a harbinger of national trends, but the enactment of Senate Bill 399, the “California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act,” represents a particularly turbulent confluence of legal forces.1 Signed into law on September 27, 2024, and effective January 1, 2025, SB 399 sought to fundamentally alter the dynamics of employer-employee communication by prohibiting mandatory “captive audience” meetings on political and religious matters, with a clear and deliberate focus on union organizing campaigns.3 However, the statute’s life was brief and tumultuous. Immediately challenged by a coalition of business groups, the law was halted by a federal preliminary injunction before the ink was barely dry, plunging employers and their counsel into a state of profound uncertainty.5

This is not merely a story of a single state law’s rise and fall. It is a critical flashpoint in the national struggle over employer speech, worker rights, and the fraught boundaries of federal power in labor relations.7 While SB 399 is currently enjoined, the underlying legal and political forces that produced it—a volatile federal labor policy landscape and a determinedly pro-labor state agenda—have created a high-risk, unpredictable environment for California employers. The injunction has not created a safe harbor for old practices; it has instead highlighted a treacherous legal crosscurrent where a suspended state law is overshadowed by a potent and controlling federal prohibition from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Effective counsel in this new era requires a sophisticated, multi-layered understanding of the enjoined state law’s mechanics, the still-active federal ban on captive audience meetings established in the NLRB’s landmark Amazon.com Services, LLC decision, and the powerful constitutional principles of federal preemption and free speech that will shape the battlefield for years to come. This report provides that analysis, deconstructing the statutory framework of SB 399, dissecting the successful legal challenge that led to its suspension, and offering actionable strategies for advising clients on navigating the significant risks of employee communications and unionization in this contentious climate.

The Anatomy of a “Job Killer”: Deconstructing California’s SB 399

Labeled a “Job Killer” by the California Chamber of Commerce, SB 399 was designed to be a formidable piece of legislation, adding Chapter 9, commencing with Section 1137, to the California Labor Code.5 Its provisions were sweeping, its definitions broad, and its penalties severe, reflecting a clear legislative intent to curb a long-standing employer tool in union organizing campaigns.

Core Prohibition—Beyond the Meeting Room

The heart of SB 399 lies in its prohibition against employer retaliation. The law makes it unlawful for an employer to “subject, or threaten to subject, an employee to discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or any other adverse action” for exercising their right to abstain from certain employer communications.4 Critically, the statute’s reach extends beyond formal, scheduled meetings. It protects an employee who “declines to attend an employer-sponsored meeting” or who “affirmatively declines to participate in, receive, or listen to any communications with the employer or its agents or representatives” when the purpose is to communicate the employer’s views on religious or political matters.2 This expansive language suggests the law could apply to informal one-on-one conversations, emails, or other digital communications, significantly broadening the compliance burden beyond simply making large group meetings voluntary. Furthermore, the act stipulated that if an employee opted out of a meeting held during their scheduled work time, they must still receive their pay.10

The Expansive Reach of “Political Matters”

The statute’s power is magnified by its broad definitions. While it covers “religious matters,” defined as those “relating to religious affiliation and practice,” its true impact stems from the definition of “political matters”.4 The law defines this term to include: “matters relating to elections for political office, political parties, legislation, regulation, and the decision to join or support any political party or political or labor organization”.2

The inclusion of “the decision to join or support any… labor organization” was the bill’s central feature, directly targeting the decades-old practice of employers holding mandatory meetings to present their perspective on unionization during an organizing drive.8 However, the inclusion of “legislation” and “regulation” created significant, and perhaps unintended, collateral effects. This language raised immediate concerns among business groups that the law would chill even essential business communications. For example, a mandatory meeting to inform employees about the operational impact of a newly passed industry-specific regulation could be construed as a prohibited meeting on a “political matter,” exposing the employer to liability.5 This ambiguity was a key component of the legal challenge, with opponents arguing it placed employers in an “impossible position” of trying to discern what was permissible business communication versus prohibited political speech.5

The Teeth of the Act—High-Stakes Enforcement

SB 399 was designed with formidable enforcement mechanisms, creating a risk profile far exceeding that of a typical unfair labor practice (ULP) charge before the NLRB. The law established a dual enforcement track:

  1. Administrative Enforcement: An aggrieved employee could file a complaint with the California Labor Commissioner, who is authorized to enforce the statute through its citation process.4
  2. Private Right of Action: Alternatively, and more ominously for employers, an employee could bring a civil action in superior court.4

The potential penalties were substantial. An employer found in violation faced a civil penalty of $500 per employee, per violation.3 In a private lawsuit, employees could seek not only compensatory damages and injunctive relief but also, most significantly, punitive damages.9 The specter of class-action lawsuits and punitive damage awards dramatically elevated the financial stakes of any communication misstep.

Carve-Outs and Exemptions—Navigating the Nuances

The legislature included several exemptions to the law’s broad prohibitions, though their practical application remains a source of legal debate. The statute does not apply to specific entities, such as religious corporations speaking on religious tenets or political organizations communicating their political purposes.3 More importantly for general employers, SB 399 provides exemptions for certain types of communication, including:

  • Information that the employer is required by law to communicate.2
  • Information that is necessary for employees to perform their job duties.2
  • Training required for an employer to comply with its legal obligations, such as mandatory anti-harassment or occupational safety training.2

While seemingly straightforward, these exemptions create a dangerous legal trap when juxtaposed with the law’s broad prohibitions. The line between a prohibited meeting about a new “regulation” (a political matter) and a permitted “training to comply with… legal obligations” created by that same regulation is perilously thin. Consider a new California law establishing complex scheduling requirements. A mandatory meeting to explain these new rules to managers is simultaneously a communication about “legislation” and a “training” on legal compliance. An employer mandating attendance would be forced to gamble on which interpretation a court might later adopt, with the risk of punitive damages hanging in the balance. This statutory ambiguity creates a chilling effect that extends beyond union-related speech to potentially necessary operational communications, a fundamental flaw in the law’s construction that bolstered the constitutional challenges against it.

From Statute to Stay: Charting the Legal Challenge and the Preliminary Injunction

The lifecycle of SB 399 as an enforceable law was exceptionally short. Its passage immediately triggered a well-orchestrated legal counteroffensive from the business community, culminating in a decisive court order that halted its implementation pending a final resolution on the merits.

The Immediate Backlash

Anticipating the law’s enactment, a powerful coalition of business interests, led by the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association, and the Western Growers Association, was prepared for litigation.5 On December 31, 2024, just before the law was to take effect, the coalition filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to block its enforcement.16

The Plaintiffs’ Two-Pronged Attack

The lawsuit mounted a formidable, two-pronged constitutional and statutory assault on SB 399:

  1. National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Preemption: The central statutory argument was that SB 399 is preempted by the NLRA. The plaintiffs contended that Congress established a comprehensive federal framework to govern labor relations and that states have no authority to create their own rules regulating employer speech during union organizing campaigns. They argued that the NLRA, specifically Section 8(c), protects an employer’s right to express its views on unionization, so long as that speech contains no threat of reprisal or promise of benefit.5
  2. First Amendment Violation: The parallel constitutional argument asserted that SB 399 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs characterized the law as an impermissible content-based and viewpoint-based restriction on speech. By singling out and penalizing employer speech on “political” and “religious” topics, while leaving other speech unregulated, the law was targeting specific subject matter and, in the context of unionization, the employer’s viewpoint.5

The Court’s Order—A Decisive Rebuke

On September 30, 2025, Judge Daniel Calabretta issued a preliminary injunction, granting the plaintiffs’ request and halting all enforcement of SB 399.5 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, granted only when a party demonstrates, among other things, a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their case. Judge Calabretta found that the business coalition had met this high bar on both of its primary arguments.6

In his analysis of the First Amendment claim, the judge rejected the state’s argument that the law merely regulated conduct (retaliation) rather than speech. The court reasoned that determining whether an employer’s adverse action was lawful or unlawful under SB 399 would invariably require an examination of the content of the meeting or communication the employee declined to attend. Because the law’s applicability turned on the subject matter of the speech, it was a content-based regulation subject to the highest level of judicial review, known as “strict scrutiny,” a standard it was unlikely to survive.6

The Current Impasse

It is crucial for legal practitioners to understand and communicate to their clients that a preliminary injunction is a temporary measure, not a final verdict. The ruling signifies that the court believes the law is likely unconstitutional and preempted, but the litigation will continue. The State of California is widely expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.6 For now, SB 399 is legally unenforceable. However, the legal battle is far from over, and the core conflict it represents continues to simmer, both in the courts and at the federal level.

The Preemption Puzzle: Why Federal Labor Law Trumped California’s Ban

The doctrine of federal preemption was the linchpin of the successful challenge to SB 399. Rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, preemption holds that federal law supersedes conflicting state law. In the realm of labor relations, Congress created the NLRA to establish a uniform national policy, entrusting its administration to the NLRB. Courts have developed two primary strands of NLRA preemption, both of which Judge Calabretta found compelling in the case against SB 399.

Garmon Preemption—The Counterintuitive Core

The first and most powerful preemption argument flows from the 1959 Supreme Court case San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon. Garmon preemption dictates that states cannot regulate conduct that is “arguably protected” by Section 7 of the NLRA (which grants employees rights to organize) or “arguably prohibited” by Section 8 of the NLRA (which defines unfair labor practices).22 Such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB.

The application of Garmon in this context is sophisticated and, at first glance, counterintuitive. The state and its labor allies likely believed that the NLRB’s 2024 decision in Amazon.com Services, LLC, which declared mandatory captive audience meetings an unfair labor practice, would provide federal justification for a similar state-level ban. However, the federal court inverted this logic entirely. The court reasoned that because the Amazon decision definitively established that compelling attendance at such meetings is prohibited by Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, the conduct falls squarely within the NLRB’s exclusive regulatory domain.22

In essence, labor’s victory at the federal level became the instrument of its defeat at the state level. By declaring the conduct an unfair labor practice, the NLRB had “occupied the field.” California was therefore preempted from creating a parallel state-level regime to regulate the very same conduct. The state cannot establish its own enforcement system, complete with different and more severe penalties like punitive damages, for an activity that is already defined and remedied as a federal unfair labor practice.

Machinists Preemption—The “Free Play of Economic Forces”

The second strand of preemption, known as Machinists preemption (from the 1976 case Lodge 76, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n), prevents states from regulating areas that Congress intended to leave to the “free play of economic forces” between labor and management.22 This doctrine protects a zone of activity that is neither explicitly protected nor prohibited by the NLRA, but which Congress intended to leave unregulated by any governmental authority.

The court found that non-coercive employer speech regarding unionization falls within this protected zone. By broadly prohibiting retaliation for non-attendance at meetings discussing unionization, SB 399 was not merely setting a minimum labor standard (an area where states generally have more authority). Instead, it was directly intervening in the organizing process and tilting the scales of the debate. The court concluded that SB 399 impermissibly put “a thumb on the scale” in favor of unionization, disrupting the balance of power and communication that Congress intended to leave to the parties themselves.22

The Federal Backdrop: The NLRB’s Amazon Revolution and the Quorum Crisis

The saga of SB 399 cannot be understood in a vacuum. It is a direct consequence of, and a reaction to, the profound instability and ideological shifts occurring at the federal level within the NLRB.

The Amazon.com Services, LLC Earthquake

On November 13, 2024, the NLRB issued its momentous decision in Amazon.com Services, LLC, a ruling that upended nearly eight decades of labor law.25 Overturning its 1948 precedent in Babcock & Wilcox Co., the Board declared that compelling employees to attend captive audience meetings where the employer expresses its views on unionization is an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.25

The Board’s new reasoning was that the act of compelling attendance, under threat of discipline, is inherently coercive. It interferes with the employees’ fundamental Section 7 right to not only form a union but also to “refrain from any or all such activities.” The Board concluded that this right to refrain includes the right to decide whether, when, and how to listen to the employer’s anti-union message.25 This decision effectively instituted a nationwide ban on mandatory anti-union meetings, fundamentally changing the playbook for employers facing an organizing drive.

A Power Vacuum in Washington

Compounding the uncertainty created by this dramatic legal shift is the institutional paralysis of the NLRB itself. Since early 2025, the Board has lacked a three-member quorum, rendering it incapable of issuing decisions in unfair labor practice cases or overseeing union representation elections.6 This federal power vacuum has created a strong incentive for pro-labor states like California, New York, Illinois, and others to step into the breach, enacting their own legislative protections for workers and testing the very limits of federal preemption.3 SB 399 was a direct product of this dynamic.

The Pendulum of Politics

The Amazon decision, while currently the law of the land, rests on a fragile political foundation. The composition of the NLRB is subject to presidential appointments, and it is widely anticipated that a future Board with a different political majority will move to overturn Amazon and reinstate the Babcock & Wilcox precedent, once again permitting mandatory meetings.7

This political volatility creates a complex legal paradox. The current injunction against SB 399 rests heavily on the Garmon preemption argument, which, in turn, is entirely dependent on the Amazon decision’s finding that the conduct is “prohibited” by federal law. If a future NLRB overturns Amazon and rules that captive audience meetings are not prohibited by the NLRA, the legal foundation for the Garmon preemption finding against SB 399 would instantly evaporate. This could create a bizarre scenario where a federal, pro-employer ruling that makes it easier for employers to hold mandatory meetings under federal law could inadvertently remove the legal barrier to SB 399’s enforcement, breathing new life into the state-level ban.23 This is a critical, forward-looking contingency that legal counsel must factor into any long-term strategic advice.

Strategic Counsel in the Crossfire: Advising Employers in the Current Climate

For employment and labor lawyers advising California businesses, the current legal landscape is a minefield. The preliminary injunction against SB 399 has created a false sense of security for some employers, who may mistakenly believe it is “business as usual.” The most critical task for counsel is to disabuse them of this notion and provide clear, conservative guidance based on the primacy of federal law.

The Injunction Is Not a Shield—The Primacy of Federal Law

This is the paramount message for every client: The injunction against SB 399 is irrelevant to an employer’s obligations under federal law. The NLRB’s decision in Amazon.com Services, LLC remains the controlling legal standard nationwide.6

Therefore, requiring employees to attend a meeting to listen to the employer’s views on unionization is currently a per se unfair labor practice under the NLRA. An employer who holds such a meeting faces a very real risk of a ULP charge being filed with the NLRB. The potential remedies for such a violation are significant and are entirely unaffected by the state court’s ruling on SB 399. These remedies could include a cease-and-desist order, a notice posting, a rerun election if the union loses, or even a direct bargaining order under the Board’s Cemex framework, which forces the employer to recognize and bargain with the union without an election.26

The Voluntary Meeting Playbook—A Compliance Checklist

While mandatory meetings are off the table, employers retain their First Amendment and Section 8(c) rights to express their non-coercive views on unionization. The key is to do so in a manner that is demonstrably voluntary. Counsel should provide clients with a strict compliance checklist based on the “safe harbor” provisions discussed by the NLRB in the Amazon decision and subsequent legal analyses.26

  • Provide Advance Written Notice: All communications inviting employees to a meeting to discuss unionization must be in writing and provided with reasonable advance notice. The notice must explicitly state the meeting’s purpose.
  • State Attendance is Voluntary: The invitation must clearly and unambiguously state that attendance is voluntary.
  • Assure No Adverse Consequences: The communication must expressly assure employees that they will not face discipline, retaliation, or any other adverse consequence for choosing not to attend or for leaving the meeting at any point.
  • Do Not Track Attendance: Employers must not create any record of who attends and who does not. This means no sign-in sheets, no manual roll calls, and disabling any electronic attendance-tracking features on video conferencing platforms like Zoom or Teams.36
  • Use Caution with Scheduling: Avoid placing voluntary meetings on employees’ mandatory work calendars or schedules. The NLRB has indicated that doing so creates a presumption that attendance is required, which could defeat the safe harbor.36

Essential Training for the Front Lines—The “TIPS” Framework

An organizing campaign is often won or lost based on the day-to-day interactions between employees and their direct supervisors. It is imperative that all managers and supervisors receive immediate and recurring training on the fundamental rules of lawful communication. The “TIPS” framework is an essential and easy-to-remember guide 39:

  • Do not Threaten: Supervisors cannot threaten employees with job loss, wage reduction, or loss of benefits if they support the union.
  • Do not Interrogate: It is illegal to question employees about their union sentiments, whether they have signed union cards, or who attended union meetings.
  • Do not Promise: Supervisors cannot promise raises, promotions, or other benefits in exchange for employees rejecting the union.
  • Do not Spy: Management cannot engage in surveillance of union activities, attend union meetings (even virtually), or create the impression that they are monitoring employees’ organizing efforts.

Clarifying the Dueling Prohibitions

To help practitioners provide clear advice, the following table distinguishes between the enjoined state law and the controlling federal rule.

FeatureCalifornia SB 399 (Currently Enjoined)NLRB Ruling (Amazon.com Services, LLC)
ScopeProhibits adverse action for non-attendance at meetings on “political” or “religious” matters.Prohibits compelling attendance at meetings where the employer expresses views on unionization.
“Political Matters”Broadly defined to include unionization, legislation, regulations, political parties, etc.Specifically focused on Section 7 rights (unionization and concerted activities).
Legal StatusUNENFORCEABLE (Preliminarily enjoined by a federal court).CONTROLLING FEDERAL LAW (Current NLRB precedent).
Primary Legal BasisCalifornia Labor Code § 1137.National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) § 8(a)(1).
Key ProhibitionRetaliation for non-attendance.Coercion to attend.
EnforcementCA Labor Commissioner; Private civil action (with punitive damages).NLRB unfair labor practice (ULP) charge.
Employer RiskCivil penalties ($500/employee), damages, injunctive relief.ULP finding, potential bargaining order (Cemex), rerun election.

The Unsettled Frontier

The preliminary injunction against SB 399 was a significant victory for California’s business community, successfully pushing back against state-level regulation of the labor-management relationship. However, it is a single battle in a much larger, ongoing war. The legal ground governing employer speech is in a profound state of flux, caught in the gravitational pull of a paralyzed but ideologically driven NLRB, activist state legislatures, and the foundational principles of constitutional law.

The ultimate fate of SB 399 remains uncertain and will likely be decided by the Ninth Circuit. More importantly, the future of the federal Amazon rule is tied to the political winds in Washington, D.C. This creates the “preemption paradox,” where a pro-employer shift at the federal level could inadvertently reactivate the enjoined state law.

For legal counsel, the only prudent path forward is to advise clients based on the most restrictive currently applicable standard. Today, that is the NLRB’s ban on mandatory captive audience meetings. The era of compelling employees to listen to an employer’s views on unionization is over, at least for the foreseeable future. The most defensible strategy is one rooted in meticulously planned voluntary communications, strict compliance with NLRB safe harbor requirements, and intensive training for all levels of management. Ultimately, in this volatile environment, the most effective long-term strategy for mitigating unionization risk remains what it has always been: fostering a workplace culture of positive employee relations where workers feel no need for third-party representation in the first place.

Works cited

  1. SB 399: New ban on employer captive audience meetings – Daily Journal, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.dailyjournal.com/article/382710-sb-399-new-ban-on-employer-captive-audience-meetings
  2. California’s New Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/californias-new-worker-freedom-from-employer-intimidation-act/
  3. Senate Bill 399: Governor Newsom Signs Law To Curtail Employer Mandatory Meetings With Employees During Union Organizing | California Workplace Law Blog, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.californiaworkplacelawblog.com/2024/09/articles/labor-law-and-unions/senate-bill-399-governor-newsom-signs-law-to-curtail-employer-mandatory-meetings-with-employees-during-union-organizing/
  4. Bill Text: CA SB399 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session | Chaptered – LegiScan, accessed October 19, 2025, https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB399/id/3023405
  5. Federal Judge Grants CalChamber’s Request to Block Senate Bill 399 – Advocacy, accessed October 19, 2025, https://advocacy.calchamber.com/2025/10/01/federal-judge-grants-calchambers-request-to-block-senate-bill-399/
  6. California is Enjoined from Prohibiting Captive Audience Meetings | CDF Labor Law LLP, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.cdflaborlaw.com/blog/california-is-enjoined-from-prohibiting-captive-audience-meetings
  7. Labor Law Update: the NLRB’s Continued Lack of a Quorum, States’ Responses to the Quorum-less NLRB, and a Federal Court Enjoins California’s Prohibition on Captive Audience Meetings (US) | Employment Law Worldview, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.employmentlawworldview.com/labor-law-update-the-nlrbs-continued-lack-of-a-quorum-states-responses-to-the-quorum-less-nlrb-and-a-federal-court-enjoins-californias-prohibition-on-captive-audience-mee/
  8. Captive Audience Meetings Now Banned By State Law in California – CDF Labor Law LLP, accessed October 19, 2025, https://callaborlaw.com/blog/captive-audience-meetings-now-banned-by-state-law-in-california
  9. California Legislature Sends Governor Bill Prohibiting Employer …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/california-legislature-sends-governor-bill-prohibiting-employer-captive-audience-meetings/
  10. “California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation” Law: What Qualifies as Intimidation? | Foley & Lardner LLP, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2025/03/california-worker-freedom-employer-intimidation-law-intimidation/
  11. Ending Intimidation in the Workplace: What You Should Know About California’s “Captive Audience” ban – Lavi & Ebrahimian, LLP, accessed October 19, 2025, https://lelawfirm.com/ending-intimidation-in-the-workplace-what-you-should-know-about-californias-captive-audience-ban/
  12. You Can’t Make Me Go to that Meeting! CA Law Prohibits Adverse Action Against Employees Who Refuse to Go to Certain Meetings | The Labor & Employment Law Blog, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.thelelawblog.com/2025/01/articles/employment-contracts-and-agreements/you-cant-make-me-go-to-that-meeting-ca-law-prohibits-adverse-action-against-employees-who-refuse-to-go-to-certain-meetings/
  13. CalChamber Challenges Recent Law Chilling Employer Speech in Federal Court, accessed October 19, 2025, https://hrwatchdog.calchamber.com/2025/01/calchamber-challenges-recent-law-chilling-employer-speech-in-federal-court/
  14. An Overview of California’s Worker Intimidation Law (New for 2025), accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.karensloatlaw.com/blog/2025/07/an-overview-of-californias-worker-intimidation-law-new-for-2025/
  15. What Employers Need to Know About the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act (SB 399) – MyHRConcierge, accessed October 19, 2025, https://myhrconcierge.com/2024/12/17/what-employers-need-to-know-about-the-california-worker-freedom-from-employer-intimidation-act-sb-399/
  16. Mandatory Captive Rules in Limbo for California Employers – 2 Federal Lawsuits Challenge SB 399 and Looming Issue Before the NLRB, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2025/03/articles/california-legislation/federal-lawsuit-challenges-californias-mandatory-captive-audience-ban/
  17. Lawsuit Filed by CA Chamber of Commerce: Challenging Senate Bill 399, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.thelelawblog.com/2025/01/articles/uncategorized/lawsuit-filed-by-ca-chamber-of-commerce-challenging-senate-bill-399/
  18. Employer Groups Obtain Preliminary Injunction Against SB 399, accessed October 19, 2025, https://employmentlawweekly.com/uncategorized/employer-groups-obtain-preliminary-injunction-against-sb-399/
  19. California’s Captive Audience Ban Blocked: What Your Business Needs to Know, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/californias-captive-audience-ban-blocked.html
  20. Showdown Over Workplace Speech – Litigation Filed to Enjoin SB 399 Prohibiting Mandatory Meetings During Union Organizing, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.californiaworkplacelawblog.com/2025/01/articles/labor-law-and-unions/showdown-over-workplace-speech-litigation-filed-to-enjoin-sb-399-prohibiting-mandatory-meetings-during-union-organizing/
  21. California’s Prohibition on Captive Audience Meetings Enjoined By Court, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.californiaworkplacelawblog.com/2025/10/articles/labor-law-and-unions/californias-prohibition-on-captive-audience-meetings-enjoined-by-court/
  22. Captive Audience Meetings: Prohibitions Remain on Hold | Labor …, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.laboremploymentlawblog.com/2025/10/articles/california-legislation/captive-audience-meetings-prohibitions-remain-on-hold/
  23. The Road Ahead for Captive Audience Meetings – OnLabor, accessed October 19, 2025, https://onlabor.org/the-road-ahead-for-captive-audience-meetings/
  24. Court Blocks California’s “Captive Audience” Law (SB 399) – Western Growers Association, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.wga.com/news/court-blocks-californias-captive-audience-law-sb-399/
  25. “Shipping” Away the Captive Audience Meeting – FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History, accessed October 19, 2025, https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6168&context=flr
  26. NLRB’s New Ruling Bans Captive-Audience Meetings | CDF Labor Law LLP, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.callaborlaw.com/blog/nlrbs-new-ruling-bans-captive-audience-meetings
  27. NLRB Bans Mandatory Informational Meetings, Overturns 76-Year-Old Precedent – Ogletree, accessed October 19, 2025, https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/nlrb-bans-mandatory-informational-meetings-overturns-76-year-old-precedent/
  28. Clear the Calendar: NLRB Restricts Captive Audience Meetings – Jackson Lewis, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/clear-calendar-nlrb-restricts-captive-audience-meetings
  29. ‘Preemption: You Again?’: New Jersey Moves to Ban Captive Audience Meetings as the NLRB Initiates Its Counterattack on Recent State Labor Statutes | BakerHostetler, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.bakerlaw.com/insights/preemption-you-again-new-jersey-moves-to-ban-captive-audience-meetings-as-the-nlrb-initiates-its-counterattack-on-recent-state-labor-statutes/
  30. Workplace Captive Audience Laws: What You Need to Know – Nolo, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/workplace-captive-audience-laws-what-you-need-to-know.html
  31. Many States’ Employee-Friendly Labor Laws Take Effect as NLRB Remains Quorum-Less, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/many-states-employee-friendly-labor-laws-take-effect-nlrb-remains-quorum-less
  32. NLRB rules anti-union captive audience meetings an illegal abuse of employer power: States must also continue to broaden protection of workers’ freedom from employer coercion on political, religious matters, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.epi.org/blog/nlrb-rules-anti-union-captive-audience-meetings-an-illegal-abuse-of-employer-power-states-must-also-continue-to-broaden-protection-of-workers-freedom-from-employer-coercion-on-political-rel/
  33. Chamber of Commerce Challenges California Ban on “Captive Audience” Meetings, accessed October 19, 2025, https://calemploymentlawupdate.proskauer.com/2025/01/business-groups-lawsuit-slams-california-ban-on-captive-audience-meetings/
  34. Challenge to Minnesota Captive Audience Law Dismissed, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.laborandemploymentlawinsights.com/2025/09/challenge-to-minnesota-captive-audience-law-dismissed/
  35. The End of Mandatory Captive Audience Meetings? 5 Tips for Adapting to the NLRB’s Latest Departure from Decades of Past Precedent, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/end-of-mandatory-captive-audience-meetings-tips-for-nlrbs-latest-departure-from-decades-of-past-precedent.html
  36. NLRB Makes Captive-Audience Meetings Illegal – Duane Morris LLP, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.duanemorris.com/alerts/nlrb_makes_captive_audience_meetings_illegal_1124.html
  37. NLRB Places Further Restrictions on Employers: Captive Audience Meetings Restricted, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.bakerdonelson.com/nlrb-places-further-restrictions-on-employers-captive-audience-meetings-restricted
  38. After 76 Years, the NLRB Declares Captive-Audience Meetings Unlawful – Stinson LLP, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.stinson.com/newsroom-publications-after-76-years-the-nlrb-declares-captive-audience-meetings-unlawful
  39. Management guidelines during union organizing – Labor Relations, accessed October 19, 2025, https://hr.uw.edu/labor/about-labor-relations/union-organizing-petitions/tips
  40. What To Do (And Not Do) When A Union Campaign Hits – Quarles, accessed October 19, 2025, https://www.quarles.com/newsroom/publications/what-to-do-and-not-do-when-a-union-campaign-hits