(Northern California Record)—Saying the law unconstitutionally tramples the free speech rights of business owners and others, California business advocates, trade groups and others have taken to the courts to challenge a new California state law, which bans employers from discussing “religious or political matters” with their workers.
The California Chamber of Commerce, along with the California Restaurant Association and Western Growers Association, were the first to file suit against the state of California, seeking to strike down the law known as SB399. Their lawsuit was first filed Dec. 31, 2024, in Sacramento federal court. An amended complaint was filed Feb. 7.
They were followed on Feb. 11 by political reform advocacy group, the California Policy Center, which filed suit in Los Angeles federal court against the state, seeking a court order striking down SB399.
The Chamber, CRA and WGA are represented by attorneys from the firm of Fisher & Phillips, of San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The CPC is represented in the action by attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit legal advocacy group which centers its work on constitutional law claims.
SB399, which was titled by its supporters as “the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act,” specifically “prohibits employers from ‘subject[ing], or threaten[ing] to subject, an employee to discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or any other adverse action’ for refusing to attend meetings or receive communications from the employer where the purpose is to ‘communicate the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters,’” according to the lawsuit.
Supporters of the law say it is needed to end so-called “captive meetings” and allow employees the freedom to avoid hearing their employers’ views.
Such legislation has been strongly backed by labor unions, which are some of the largest campaign donors to Democrats nationwide.
In practice, however, opponents say such laws, including California’s would violate the First Amendment rights of employers and other organizations, as well as trespass on other constitutional protections.
SB399 specifically empowers employees who believe their employers have violated the law to sue their employers directly for allegedly violating their rights under SB399.
Even if they don’t sue, the law still empowers the California State Labor Commissioner to investigate claims against businesses and launch enforcement actions against employers.
Under the law, employers accused of violating SB399 could get socked with penalties worth as much as $500 per employee for each alleged violation. This could potentially subject employers to thousands or even millions of dollars in potential penalties, when multiplied across entire workforces, depending on the nature of the alleged violations.
In the lawsuits, the plaintiffs assert the threats of potentially costly legal fights and investigations have the effect of “chilling and prohibiting employer speech” and interfering with the employers’ ability to communicate with their workers.
“Throughout legislative deliberations, we repeatedly underscored the fact that SB 399 was a huge overreach,” said CalChamber President and CEO Jennifer Barrera in a statement issued at the time her organization first filed suit. “SB 399 is clearly viewpoint-based discrimination, which runs afoul of the First Amendment.
The CPC particularly noted that, in its case, the law could leave them facing enforcement actions and lawsuits for merely carrying out their mission of discussing political and legal affairs and the organization’s legislative and policy goals with their workers, as they have done throughout their existence.
“SB 399 sets a dangerous precedent by allowing the government to punish Californian employers for their speech based on whether it approves of the content of that speech,” said Will Swaim, president of the California Policy Center in a statement.
Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, added: “The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly found that content-based restrictions on free speech are presumptively unconstitutional. California cannot pick and choose what employers may say at mandatory employee meetings.”
In addition to the alleged constitutional violations, the California Chamber and their co-plaintiffs allege SB399 also should be struck down for violating the National Labor Relations Act, as they assert it trespasses upon federal labor law and its rules governing relationships between employers and their workers.
SB399 was enacted by California’s Democratic legislative supermajority and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom last fall. It took effect Jan. 1.
The lawsuits are similar to those challenging similar laws enacted previously by other states, including in Illinois, Connecticut and Minnesota.
Opponents, however, claim the law is an unconstitutional assault upon the speech rights of employers and a sop to labor unions, in particular, who they say are seeking to monopolize the attention of workers and muzzle efforts by employers to thwart unionization of their workplaces.
Opponents in Illinois noted the law specifically exempts unions from the rules imposed on other employers, leaving them free to proselytize to employees and others on behalf of their political and economic goals, while infringing the rights of opponents.
All of those lawsuits remain pending.
The state of California has not yet responded to either lawsuit against it in court.