Published
October 03, 2025
As this blog has noted, the State of California has been pushing a decidedly pro-labor agenda of late, including a ban on so-called “captive audience” meetings at which employers discuss unionization with their employees. One positive development came on September 30, however, when a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against California’s ban.
The case concerns a challenge to California Senate Bill (SB) 399, which Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law just over a year ago. The law prohibits an employer’s right to take adverse action against an employee who refuses to attend meetings related to “political matters” or “religious matters.”
Not surprisingly, the California Chamber of Commerce and California Restaurant Association filed a lawsuit claiming that SB 399 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by discriminating against an employer’s viewpoints on political matters and improperly regulating the content of employer speech.
They also argued that SB 399 is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). That federal law explicitly protects employers’ right to discuss issues with their employees, saying “[t]he expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this subchapter, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.”
In a 35-page decision, Judge Daniel J. Calabretta agreed that SB 399 likely violates the constitutional rights of employers and that the law is preempted by the NLRA to the extent it purports to prohibit employers from requiring the presence of employees to communicate the employer’s message on unionization.
For employers in California, Judge Calabretta’s ruling prevents enforcement of SB 399, for now at least. Whether he will issue a permanent injunction is another story, and time will tell whether his findings will hold. However, the issuing of a preliminary injunction is a good sign, especially in a state where so many policies adverse to employers seem to be increasingly taking root.
About the author
Sean P. Redmond
Sean P. Redmond is Vice President, Labor Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
