Blogs

A federal court has temporarily blocked enforcement of California’s new “captive audience” law, Senate Bill 399 (SB 399), offering employers a reprieve while the case proceeds. The ruling underscores the ongoing tension between state efforts to regulate employer communications and federal labor law’s broad reach over union-related activity.

What SB 399 Would Have Done

SB 399, set to take effect January 1, 2025, amended the Labor Code to prohibit employers from requiring employees to attend meetings where the “primary purpose” was to express the employer’s opinions on religious or political matters, including unionization. It also forbade retaliation against employees who declined to attend. The law made California one of several states seeking to limit mandatory employer meetings during union campaigns, commonly known as “captive audience” meetings.

Why the Court Blocked the Law

In October 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction halting SB 399’s enforcement. The court found two major flaws:

1. Federal preemption. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) governs communications between employers and employees about unionization. The court concluded that California’s law intruded on this federally regulated area, conflicting with the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) authority.

2. First Amendment issues. By prohibiting employers from expressing opinions on “political or religious” topics, including unionization, SB 399 imposed a content-based restriction on speech. The court ruled that even non-coercive, lawful discussions could be chilled, violating employers’ constitutional rights.

As a result, California cannot enforce the law while the case continues. However, this is only a preliminary ruling; the outcome could change after full litigation or appeal.

What This Means for Employers

For now, California employers may continue to hold mandatory meetings about workplace issues, including unionization, as long as they comply with existing federal labor law. The injunction restores the status quo but does not grant carte blanche. The NLRB has recently taken a stricter stance on “captive audience” practices, suggesting that such meetings may violate the NLRA unless attendance is clearly voluntary and free from coercion.

Practical Steps for Employers

• Review communication policies. Ensure meeting practices align with current NLRB guidance and do not suggest adverse consequences for employees who choose not to attend.

• Train managers. Supervisors should understand what constitutes coercive or retaliatory behavior in the context of union discussions.

• Document voluntariness. If conducting meetings on union or political matters, provide advance notice and clarify that participation is voluntary.

• Monitor developments. The injunction is temporary. The law could still take effect if the state prevails on appeal or the Legislature revises the statute.

The Bottom Line

The court’s decision pauses a sweeping new restriction on employer speech and affirms that federal law occupies much of the field when it comes to labor-relations communications. While SB 399 remains unenforceable, employers should remain vigilant. Both the NLRB and state lawmakers continue to scrutinize how employers communicate about unionization, making compliance with evolving federal standards and consultation with experienced labor counsel essential.

For more assistance with ensuring that your HR policies and processes are compliant with California labor laws, don’t hesitate to reach out to our California Legal Services team at CAinfo@employerscouncil.org. 

Mary Miller is a California-licensed attorney with Employers Council.