Challenge to “Captive Audience” Law Fails, For Now

A challenge by the Connecticut Business & Industry Association (“CBIA”) to Connecticut’s so-called “captive audience” law failed when a federal court in Connecticut found that the CBIA lacked standing to bring the claim.  The decision is a setback to those challenging the law, which bars mandatory employer meetings on political and religious topics.

The decision by Judge Kari A. Dooley U.S. Chamber of Commerce et al. v. Bartolomeo et al. allows the law to stand for now and leaves several questions unanswered for employers about the ultimate fate of the statute and its impact on workplace communications on unionization and other politically sensitive topics.

Background of the Captive Audience Law

In 2022, Connecticut enacted its captive audience law, making it unlawful for employers to require employees to attend meetings where the employer communicates its opinions on political or religious matters, including the employer’s views on unionization. The law imposes civil penalties on employers who discipline employees for refusing to attend such meetings.

Shortly after the law’s passage, a coalition of business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a federal lawsuit. The plaintiffs—which included the CBIA, Connecticut’s largest business association—alleged that the law violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments and was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

The Court’s Decision on Standing

Rather than reaching the merits of the constitutional and preemption claims, Judge Dooley’s decision focused on whether the CBIA had standing to assert its claims.

The state argued that the CBIA lacks organizational standing because the Connecticut Department of Labor (“DOL”) had previously indicated that the CBIA could continue to hold mandatory monthly meetings for its employees and could discipline workers who refuse to attend. The DOL’s position was based on its interpretation that the CBIA—an organization “specifically in the business of political advocacy” whose “mission is to engage in advocacy”—would not violate the law by discussing its position on unionization with its employees.

In comparison, the plaintiffs countered by arguing the CBIA had a credible fear of enforcement because of its intention to hold meetings with employees to discuss the CBIA’s stance on political issues like unionization. 

Judge Dooley disagreed with the plaintiffs, denying their motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of the state. The Court found that the DOL’s prior statements negated any credible fear of enforcement. Under established Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, the state’s announcement that it does not plan to enforce the law against the CBIA is sufficient to eliminate the standing requirement of a credible enforcement threat.

Key Takeaways for Connecticut Employers

There are several important points for Connecticut employers to understand:

1. The Law Remains in Effect. This ruling did not strike down Connecticut’s captive audience law. The statute continues to apply, and employers who require attendance at meetings discussing political or religious views—including anti-union messaging—risk civil penalties if they discipline employees who refuse to attend.
2. Enforcement May Be Discretionary. The DOL’s position regarding the CBIA suggests that it may interpret the law narrowly in certain circumstances. The DOL concluded that the CBIA’s discussions of its position on unionization did not violate the law because the organization is “specifically in the business of political advocacy.” Most employers, however, are not in the business of political advocacy, and the DOL’s reasoning would likely not provide similar protection. 
3. Broader Constitutional Questions Remain Unresolved. The Court did not rule on whether the law violates the First Amendment or is preempted by the NLRA. Judge Dooley notably acknowledged that Connecticut’s law is “materially identical to a recently enjoined California law,” suggesting the court may have had concerns about the statute’s constitutionality had it reached the merits. This signals that the legal battle over captive audience laws is far from over.
4. Other States Are Watching. Connecticut is part of a growing number of states that have enacted captive audience laws in recent years. The outcome of this litigation—and similar challenges in other states—will have national implications for employer speech rights in the workplace.

Looking Ahead

Judge Dooley acknowledged that the path forward for the case is “a murky one.” While other plaintiffs besides the CBIA remain in the lawsuit, they face the same fundamental problem: to continue the case, they must show that either they or their members face a real threat of being penalized under the law. As a result, the remaining plaintiffs may need to appeal this ruling before they can ever get a court to decide whether the law is constitutional. 

In the meantime, Connecticut employers should continue to assume that the captive audience law applies to them. Employers who wish to communicate with employees about unionization or other political topics should talk with counsel before making such meetings mandatory before disciplining employees who choose not to attend.

We will continue to monitor this case closely, as a ruling on the merits could significantly impact employers’ ability to communicate with employees about unionization and other workplace issues.