Updated January 29, 2026
What Are Captive Audience Meetings?
Captive audience meetings are mandatory gatherings held by employers during working hours where employees must attend or face potential disciplinary actions, including termination. These meetings predominantly occur in the context of union organizing efforts where employers communicate their views on unionization to employees. During these sessions, employers typically present anti-union perspectives, discouraging employees from joining labor organizations.
The mandatory nature of these meetings means employees cannot opt out without risking negative consequences such as formal discipline, denial of promotions or raises, or in some cases, termination of employment. This compulsory attendance creates a power dynamic where workers are forced to listen to the employer's message regardless of their personal interest in the content.
Historically, federal labor law through the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) permitted these meetings with limited restrictions. Prior to November 2024, employers could legally conduct captive audience meetings except within the final 24 hours before a union election. This "cooling off" period was established to prevent last-minute coercive communications that might unduly influence election results.
These meetings have become widespread in labor organizing contexts, with data showing they occur in approximately 89% of all National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) elections. Furthermore, statistics indicate that the use of captive audience meetings reduces the average union election win rate significantly from 73% to 47%.
In late 2024, the National Labor Relations Board fundamentally changed the legal landscape by ruling in Amazon.com Services LLC that captive audience meetings violate the NLRA. The NLRB determined these meetings interfere with workers' Section 7 rights because they:
- Restrict employees' freedom to decide whether, when, and how to participate in unionization debates
- Create opportunities for employer surveillance of employees during discussions about Section 7 rights
- Demonstrate the employer's economic power over employees, inhibiting free exercise of rights
Under current NLRB standards, employers may still hold meetings to express views on unionization, but must provide advance notice that attendance is voluntary with no adverse consequences for non-attendance and no attendance records.
Proponents argue these meetings provide necessary structure for employers to present information on legal rights and workplace dynamics during union campaigns. Conversely, critics view them as coercive tactics that infringe on workers' freedom of association, noting that employers spend over $400 million annually on "union-avoidance" consultants who utilize these meetings.
What does California SB 399 prohibit?
California Senate Bill 399, officially titled the "California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act," prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend meetings about unionization and other political or religious topics. Effective January 1, 2025, the law specifically forbids employers from subjecting or threatening employees with discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or any other adverse action because they decline to attend employer-sponsored meetings or refuse to participate in communications where the employer expresses opinions about religious or political matters.
The legislation defines "political matters" broadly 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". This definition notably encompasses labor organizations, making the law particularly relevant to union organizing activities. Similarly, "religious matters" are defined as "matters relating to religious affiliation and practice and the decision to join or support any religious organization or association".
While SB 399 does not completely prohibit captive audience meetings, it effectively renders them voluntary by protecting employees who choose not to attend. Importantly, employers must still pay employees who opt not to attend these meetings if they continue working during that time.
Employers found violating this law face significant consequences. The statute imposes a civil penalty of $500 per employee for each violation. Additionally, the law creates enforcement mechanisms through both the Labor Commissioner and private civil actions, allowing employees to seek injunctive relief and recover damages caused by alleged adverse actions.
Although primarily targeted at union organizing situations, the law applies broadly to any mandatory meeting discussing political or religious topics. The prohibition extends to both private and public employers throughout California, regardless of size. This represents a significant shift in employment law practice, as employers have traditionally relied on these meetings as an effective counter to union organizing campaigns.
Nevertheless, SB 399 maintains several important exceptions. The law does not restrict employers from communicating information they are legally required to share, information necessary for employees to perform job duties, or training related to legal compliance obligations such as civil rights and occupational safety laws. Moreover, certain entities are exempt from the law entirely, including religious corporations, political organizations, educational institutions, and specific nonprofit training programs.
Who is exempt under the law?
SB 399 contains several key exemptions that limit its applicability to certain organizations and situations. These carve-outs recognize the unique nature of certain entities and the legitimate need for mandatory communications in specific contexts.
Religious organizations
Religious institutions or organizations that qualify for exemption under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not subject to SB 399 restrictions regarding religious communications. Consequently, these entities may conduct mandatory meetings or communications concerning religious matters with their employees. This exemption applies specifically when the organization's primary purpose is religious and the communications directly relate to the organization's mission. Religious corporations can therefore continue to discuss faith-related topics as part of their work environment without violating the law. However, this exemption is limited to religious matters only and does not extend to other political communications, including those about labor organizations.
Educational institutions
Educational organizations receive exemptions when requiring students or instructors to attend lectures that include political or religious content as part of regular coursework. This provision ensures academic freedom within educational settings remains protected despite the broader restrictions on mandatory meetings. Additionally, the exemption extends to institutions of higher education conducting communications with employees that relate to coursework, symposia, or academic programming. This carve-out recognizes the unique role educational institutions play in fostering diverse viewpoints and academic discourse, even on potentially controversial religious or political topics.
Legally required trainings
SB 399 expressly permits employers to require employee participation in trainings necessary for compliance with legal obligations. This includes mandatory training related to civil rights laws, occupational safety and health regulations, anti-discrimination policies, and harassment prevention. The exemption ensures that employers can fulfill their legal compliance requirements without fear of violating the captive audience meeting restrictions. Furthermore, the law does not restrict employers from communicating information they are legally obligated to share with employees, even if such information might touch on otherwise protected topics. This pragmatic exception acknowledges that certain communications remain essential for workplace safety, legal compliance, and employee protection regardless of their potential political or religious content.
Other entities exempt from SB 399 include political organizations or parties, nonprofit tax-exempt training programs conducting community service related to their mission, and public employers conducting new employee orientations.
How is SB 399 enforced and what are the penalties?
SB 399 establishes a robust enforcement framework with significant penalties for non-compliance. The law creates a dual-track enforcement system that enables both governmental action and individual legal recourse for affected employees.
Civil penalties
Pursuant to SB 399, employers who violate the prohibition against mandatory captive audience meetings face a civil penalty of $500 per employee per violation. This means each instance where an employer compels an employee to attend a political or religious meeting constitutes a separate violation, potentially resulting in substantial financial liability for employers with large workforces. The penalty applies regardless of whether the employer actually took adverse action against an employee who declined to attend or simply threatened such action. These civil penalties serve as a deterrent against employment law violations related to mandatory political or religious meetings.
Private right of action
Beyond governmental enforcement, SB 399 grants employees the ability to pursue civil litigation against employers who violate the law. Affected workers may file a civil action in superior court seeking various forms of relief. Available remedies include compensatory damages for harm caused by adverse employment actions, injunctive relief to halt ongoing violations, and notably, punitive damages in appropriate cases. This private enforcement mechanism empowers employees to independently address violations without relying solely on government agencies.
Labor Commissioner enforcement
The California Labor Commissioner possesses authority to enforce SB 399 through its established citation process. Employees may file complaints with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement as an alternative to private litigation. This administrative enforcement path leverages the state's existing labor compliance infrastructure. The Commissioner's enforcement powers complement the private right of action, creating a comprehensive system for addressing violations. Importantly, the law specifies that employees who decline to attend prohibited meetings but are working during that time must continue to be paid while the meeting takes place.
How does SB 399 conflict with federal labor law?
Federal and state laws frequently clash in the labor relations domain, with SB 399 creating significant legal tensions with established federal labor protections. These conflicts span multiple dimensions of employment law, raising substantive questions about jurisdictional boundaries.
NLRA protections for employer speech
The National Labor Relations Act expressly protects employer speech about unionization through Section 8(c), commonly known as the "free speech provision." This section permits employers to express views on unionization provided there are no threats of reprisal or promises of benefits. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly recognized employers' rights to communicate with employees regarding union organizing. Yet SB 399's restrictions on employer-sponsored meetings about "political matters," which explicitly includes labor organization issues, directly contradicts these federally protected communication rights. This creates a fundamental conflict where employers must choose between complying with state law or exercising their federal rights.
First Amendment concerns
Several business groups have challenged SB 399 on constitutional grounds, arguing it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Opponents contend the law stifles employer speech by discriminating against viewpoints on political matters and restricting content of communications. Judge Daniel Calabretta, ruling in the Eastern District of California, determined SB 399 improperly regulates speech under the guise of regulating conduct. The court found that determining whether an employer violated SB 399 would necessitate analyzing the content of statements—a hallmark of unconstitutional, content-based regulation. Furthermore, since SB 399 restricts political speech, it triggers strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
Preemption arguments
Legal challenges to SB 399 primarily rest upon two distinct preemption doctrines. Garmon preemption holds that when conduct falls under Sections 7 or 8 of the NLRA, states must defer to the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB. Since the NLRB recently determined mandatory meetings about unionization violate the NLRA, this subject matter falls squarely within federal jurisdiction. Separately, Machinists preemption prevents states from regulating areas Congress intentionally left unregulated and subject to economic forces. The courts have determined that "non-coercive" employer speech about unionization represents precisely such an area. Accordingly, SB 399 intrudes upon a sphere Congress deliberately reserved for employer-employee bargaining dynamics.
What should employers do to comply with SB 399?
Employers operating in California must take proactive steps to comply with SB 399's restrictions on captive audience meetings by January 1, 2025, when the law becomes effective.
Review and update policies
Organizations should immediately assess existing workplace communication policies, especially those concerning political and union-related topics. These policies may require substantial modification to ensure compliance with SB 399's parameters. Companies must develop an approach tailored to their specific business and risk profile given the current state and federal law considerations. Updating employee handbooks to underscore the voluntary nature of meetings regarding religious or political matters (including union organizing) is essential. Documentation of these policy changes provides important evidence of compliance efforts.
Train supervisors
Front-line supervisors need comprehensive training on the parameters of SB 399. This training should explain what types of communications are permitted on political or religious topics, as well as how to ensure attendance at such meetings remains truly voluntary. Managers must understand their role in compliance, given their day-to-day interactions with employees. Training should emphasize that supervisors must never require attendance at meetings concerning unionization or other political matters.
Make meetings voluntary
Henceforth, employers must communicate the purpose of any meetings concerning unionization, religious, or political matters and emphasize their voluntary nature, preferably in writing. Organizations should consider implementing procedures for employees to acknowledge the voluntary nature of applicable meetings without creating NLRA surveillance issues. Essentially, employees must receive reasonable advance notice about the meeting's subject matter, be informed that attendance is voluntary with no adverse consequences for non-attendance, and understand that no attendance records will be kept.
References
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/captive_audience
https://advocacy.calchamber.com/2024/10/03/california-to-limit-certain-employer-communications-starting-january-1/
https://hrwatchdog.calchamber.com/2025/10/district-court-enjoins-sb-399-enforcement-limiting-employer-speech/
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/
https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240sb399
https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/california-legislature-sends-governor-bill-prohibiting-employer-captive-audience-meetings/
https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-rules-captive-audience-meetings-unlawful
