California’s protection for workers who decline certain employer meetings remains blocked after a federal appeals court found that challengers were likely to succeed on their free-speech claim.
The Ninth Circuit’s October 29 decision in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta affirmed a preliminary injunction against enforcement of SB 399.
This is an appellate ruling on preliminary relief, not a final judgment after trial.
What SB 399 regulates
The law restricts employers from taking or threatening adverse action against employees who decline employer-sponsored meetings or communications conveying the employer’s views on political or religious matters.
The dispute includes communications concerning union organizing.
California argued that the measure regulates employment conduct rather than speech. The panel concluded that the restriction depends on the message communicated at the meeting, making its content central to enforcement.
What the panel decided
The unanimous panel held that the industry groups had shown a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claim.
Because that conclusion supported the preliminary injunction, the Court did not decide the separate argument that federal labour law pre-empts the state measure.
That unresolved issue matters. The opinion should not be cited as an appellate determination of every legal theory raised against SB 399.
Why employment lawyers should care
The case places two competing characterizations of the same rule in focus: protection from employment consequences and restriction based on the content of employer communications.
For Canadian practitioners, the U.S. constitutional outcome does not determine domestic labour or employment law. The comparative value lies in how the panel examined the connection between a regulated employment action and the message triggering liability.
Timing: Opinion issued October 29, within the catch-up window. No subsequent decision changing this outcome was identified through October 31.
Sources: Ninth Circuit opinion · Reuters report