Workplace Captive Audience Laws: What You Need to Know

In recent years, "captive audience" laws have emerged as a significant battleground in American labor relations. These laws address a common workplace dynamic where employers require employees to attend meetings about unionization, politics, or religious matters without allowing them to leave or express opposing views.

Several states have passed laws prohibiting such meetings. And in November 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) banned captive audience meetings where the topic is unionization.

However, such laws have also led to a backlash. Business groups are suing to overturn captive audience bans in some states. And the NLRB's ruling—and the future of the NLRB itself—is uncertain under the current federal administration. As a result, captive audience laws are likely to remain in flux in the coming years.

What Are Captive Audience Meetings?

In most states, an employer can legally compel employees to attend meetings at which the employer conveys their religious or political views. Employees who do not attend these meetings—or who voice objection at the meetings—can be disciplined or fired.

Employers have used such meetings to pressure employees to vote a certain way, donate to political campaigns, or adopt the employer's religious beliefs. A small but growing number of states have banned such meetings.

Until recently, employers were also permitted to hold "captive audience meetings" in response to employee attempts to unionize. These meetings were mandatory, took place during work hours on company property, and were designed to discourage employees from voting to unionize. The NLRB ruled in November 2024 that such meetings are unlawful (discussed below).

The Rise in Union Organizing and Employer Opposition

Unionization efforts have surged in recent years, with workers at some of the nation's largest employers mounting successful organizing campaigns and voting to unionize. Over 12,000 Starbucks workers at 535 stores have voted to unionize since 2021. In 2022, Amazon workers at an 8,000-employee warehouse in Staten Island, New York formed the first union in the company's history.

But workers at Starbucks, Amazon, and employers throughout the country face significant employer opposition when attempting to unionize and bargain with employers. While some companies have been accused of illegal union-busting—judges have issued over 100 findings of labor law violations against Starbucks alone—many employers have used legal tactics to discourage unionization and delay bargaining.

For example, during the organizing campaign at Amazon's Staten Island warehouse, Amazon displayed anti-union messages everywhere from restroom stalls to large monitors throughout the workplace, sent mass anti-union email and text messages to workers, held captive audience meetings urging employees to reject unionization and threatening to withhold benefits, and fired pro-union managers.

At one point in the campaign, Amazon forced workers to attend mandatory anti-union meetings every 45 minutes, day and night, six days a week. Amazon managers personally notified each employee that they were required to attend the meetings, escorted them to the meetings, and scanned their ID badges to track attendance.

In 2022, Amazon spent over $14 million on external anti-union consultants. Employers often hire these consultants to conduct captive audience meetings.

The Amazon Captive Audience Case

Amazon's tactics in response to the unionization efforts at its Staten Island facility led the NLRB to overturn longstanding precedent, ruling in November 2024 that captive audience meetings violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)—the law that gives workers the right to unionize. (Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (2024).)

The Board found that while employers have the right to express their views on unionization, forcing workers to attend meetings where they must listen to these views is a form of coercion. The NLRB reasoned that captive audience meetings inhibit employees from exercising their rights under the NLRA due to employers' greater economic power, ability to compel meetings under threat of discipline or discharge, and ability to use the meetings as a surveillance method.

The Board held that employers may lawfully hold meetings to share their views on unionization as long as workers are provided advance notice of three things:

• the subject of the meeting
• that attendance is voluntary and employees will not be disciplined, discharged, or subjected to any other adverse consequences for failure to attend; and
• that the employer will not keep records of who attended, who failed to attend, or who left the meeting.

The Board held that an employer will be found to have unlawfully compelled attendance at a meeting if, under all the circumstances, employees could reasonably conclude that attendance was required as part of their job duties or that failure to attend could subject them to adverse consequences.

The Future of the Amazon Ruling and the NLRB

The NLRB's Amazon ruling articulates current federal law on captive audience meetings. However, the future of the ruling—and the NLRB itself—is uncertain.

Although the NLRB is an independent agency, its General Counsel and five members are appointed by the president, which means its political leanings can shift depending on who is in the White House. The Board tends to be more pro-labor under a Democratic president and more pro-business under a Republican president. The Board decided the Amazon case during the Biden administration; it could reverse that decision during the Trump administration.

As of January 2025, however, the Board is unable to take any action at all. The Trump administration fired one of the NLRB's members before her term was up, bringing the number of vacancies on the Board to three. The administration has not appointed anyone to fill these vacancies.

Without a quorum, the Board lacks the authority to decide cases, investigate unfair labor practices, oversee union elections, or otherwise enforce laws governing unions. In addition, Elon Musk's SpaceX has sued the NLRB, arguing that the agency itself is unconstitutional. Amazon, Starbucks, and Trader Joe's have made similar arguments in court filings.

The NLRB's inability to function creates uncertainty for workers, unions, and employers regarding captive audience meetings as well as the future of U.S. labor law.

State Bans on Captive Audience Meetings

While the future of federal captive audience law remains uncertain, states are increasingly passing captive audience laws of their own.

Twelve states currently have bans on captive audience meetings:

• Alaska
• California
• Connecticut
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Maine
• Minnesota
• New Jersey
• New York
• Oregon
• Vermont, and
• Washington.

At least five other states are considering captive audience bans.

State captive audience laws generally prohibit employers from penalizing or threatening to penalize employees who choose not to attend meetings at which employers share their opinions on religious or political matters, including unionization. Most of these laws include an exception for meetings that provide employees with legally required information.

Business groups in states including California, Connecticut, Illinois, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits challenging these captive audience bans. These groups argue that the First Amendment gives them the right to express their views in captive audience meetings. Echoing the NLRB's ruling in the Amazon case, the states counter that the First Amendment does not protect coercion or threats of reprisal.

Contact an Attorney

If your employer has compelled you to attend a captive audience meeting or threatened to discharge, retaliate, or take other adverse action against you because you declined to attend a meeting, an employment attorney can help you examine your options.

An experienced employment lawyer can assist you in determining which laws apply in your state and how to file a claim with the court or the NLRB.