CT Captive Audience Law Survives Legal Challenge From Business Lobby

by Staff Report CTNewsJunkie

HARTFORD, CT — Workers will continue to be protected from cert ain mandatory meetings after a district court judge dismissed a challenge to Connecticut’s captive audience law.

Captive audience meetings are mandatory meetings held during work hours to pressure employees to support certain religious or political points of view, political candidates or to vote against forming a union. Connecticut enacted legislation in 2022 that gave workers the right to not attend or leave such meetings and return to work when the subject of the meeting is about an employer’s politics, religion or union organizing. The Connecticut Business and Industry Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other entities jointly challenged the statute in a federal lawsuit filed in 2022.

“Workers should not be forced to listen to their employer’s religious or political views — including anti-union rhetoric,” said Attorney General William Tong. “Connecticut’s captive audience statute is both lawful and necessary, and the Office of the Attorney General will continue to defend the state’s ability to protect workers’ rights.”

Chris Davis, CBIA’s vice president for public policy, said the organization remained confident that the law was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment.

“The court’s decision addressed only procedural standing issues and did not reach the substance of those constitutional claims,” Davis said. “We will continue advocating for the rights of employers to manage their workplaces free from government overreach and are reviewing further options to challenging the law’s constitutionality.”

When the bill passed the legislature, the organization labeled it hostile to employers and possibly illegal.

Chris DiPentima, then president and CEO of CBIA, said at the time that the bill could effectively prohibit employers from engaging in necessary workplace matters because it enabled an employee to leave whenever they subjectively felt “political matters” were under discussion.

“For example, employees could refuse to attend workplace meetings because they are offensive to one’s personal political or religious views,” DiPentima wrote in a letter to Lamont. “This could impact discussions and training about diversity, equity and inclusion, LGBTQ issues, vaccination policy, or maintaining workplace safety.”

According to Tong’s office, U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley granted the state’s motion for summary judgment, finding that CBIA lacked standing to continue the suit because its First Amendment rights to speak to its employees are not impacted by the law.