If you followed California’s 2024 Legislative term, you know that Senate Bill 399 (“SB 399”) was passed and signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 27, 2024.  For the most part, SB 399 has been described as a new “captive audience” law that prevents most, but not all, employers from taking any adverse action against an employee who declines to attend an employer-sponsored meeting in which the employer or its agents discuss “political matters” or “religious matters.” The law came about during a time of great political division in the US, and was aimed at protecting an employee’s right to hold their own political and religious views, and be free of intimidation by their employer.

However, a closer reading of SB 399 reveals that the restrictions imposed on employers by the new law may be broader than originally understood. The definition of “political matters” under the law includes not only matters relating to elections for political office, political parties, and the decision to join or support any political party or political or labor organization, but also matters related to legislation or regulation. Because SB 399 does not specify that the legislation or regulation has to be related to some political issue, it seems that employers could run afoul of the new law if they take adverse action against an employee who refuses to attend a meeting to discuss pending or enacted legislation or regulation on any topic, including one that could be directly related to the employer’s industry or business. 

Now, there are a few exceptions in the new law, including one that states that the law does not prohibit an employer from “communicating to its employees any information that is necessary for those employees to perform their job duties.”  But is that enough?  Shouldn’t employers, especially those in highly regulated industries, be able to require employees to attend meetings that discuss legislation and regulations that impacts the employers’ workplace or industry even if the information is not specifically necessary for the performance of a particular employee’s job duties? Similar laws have been challenged in other jurisdictions in the past, and it is anticipated that certain businesses in California may pursue litigation to challenge the breadth of SB 399. However, as it currently stands, if an employer violates the new law, an employee can seek penalties through the CA Labor Commissioner’s Office, or file a private civil action for compensatory and punitive damages.

Unless and until the Legislature passes some clean-up legislation to clarify what it meant when it included “legislation or regulation” in the definition of “political matters” under SB 399, or we get some court guidance, the new law arguable could have some unanticipated and, hopefully, unintended, implications for employers who take adverse action against an employee who refuses to attend a meeting to discuss otherwise non-political legislation or regulations that may impact the employer’s business.

Stay tuned as we continue to monitor how the new law plays out.