Employers rethink captive audience meetings – amid rising workplace politics

One effective way to get a message across is to force everyone to listen to it.
Employers have traditionally done so with what’s commonly known as mandatory captive-audience meetings. But for employers, holding all-hands meetings to discuss certain topics and penalizing staff who do not attend is now illegal.
In California, a law went into effect Jan. 1 making it illegal to force employees to attend meetings where employers discuss political or religious topics. If an employee declines to attend, they cannot be penalized under the law. Similar laws have been passed in states including Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.
Typically, captive audience meetings refer to mandatory meetings employers hold to discuss union-related activities with employees or other workplace disputes, often aiming to dissuade employees from forming a union. But government officials want to ensure these captive audience meetings don’t become platforms for employers to hammer home their political stance or religious views to all employees.
It comes as workers hold increasingly polarized opinions about broader political and social issues and their employer’s responsibilities as influential institutions.
But some employers have pushed back. The new rules will make it trickier for employers to effectively communicate certain messages across their organizations, according to business groups that have sued over some of those state laws, alleging they violate the employer’s First Amendment rights.
“When the country is so divided, it’s quite understandable that an employee doesn’t want to have the terms and conditions of their employment to somehow depend on agreeing with the employers’ viewpoint on these highly contentious and divisive points,” said Deena Merlen, partner at Reavis Page Jump LLP.
So no talking politics?
One key problem is that nearly everything feels political these days, and navigating ambiguity around what topics are considered political or religious will be a challenge for employers. “It’s just not predictable. Employers can’t reasonably know if a particular matter is going to expose them to liability,” Merlen said.
Some states’ laws attempt to define what constitutes a political topic — like California’s, which considers political matters to be anything relating to elections for political office, political parties, legislation, regulation, and the decisions to join or support any political party or political or labor organizations.
During the pandemic, COVID-19 itself was widely considered a political issue, along with vaccinations and vaccine mandates for certain workers. Mark Kluger, partner at employment law firm Kluger Healey, remembers employers bringing in medical experts to talk about the safety and efficacy of vaccinations once they were made available during all-hands meetings.
“I suppose somebody who had religious objections could have complained that they were forced to be indoctrinated in something they didn’t believe in,” Kluger said.
Where does this fit in with DEI?
The Trump administration’s mission to end diversity, equity and inclusion across the federal government and pressure private companies to do the same is making diversity in workplaces a hot-button political issue. “There may be more meetings where employers are going to either say we’re rolling it back, or we’re continuing our DEI efforts, and having employees be required to participate in those discussions,” Kluger said.
Beyond general DEI-focused meetings, mandatory diversity training in workplaces is one area likely to draw greater attention in the future. Sexual harassment and discrimination training are also required for workers in certain states, raising concerns about the ability to follow those laws and captive audience laws at the same time.
Tips for HR professionals
Ultimately, employers can still hold meetings where such topics are discussed, but they can’t force all employees to attend. “The law really is about retaliation,” Kluger said.
But retaliation can often be more subtle. For instance, if an employee declines to attend DEI meetings and they are later terminated, or passed over for a promotion, it can be tricky to prove that those decisions were made based on their refusal to skip those meetings.
At the same time, HR needs to be aware of such rules as politically charged topics become near impossible to keep out of modern workplaces. “They need to carefully think through the topics for mandatory meetings,” Kluger said.
“Employers should probably err on the side of being cautious in what meetings they require employees to attend and what meetings they allow employees to opt out of,” he said.
State laws also vary, and some allow workers to opt out of attending meetings and reviewing written materials related to political topics. Accordingly, it’s important for HR to know what exactly the law is in their particular state, said Richard Fanning, senior counsel at Clark Hill Law.