Rhode Island Bans “Captive Audience” Meetings

On July 2, 2025, Rhode Island Governor Daniel McKee signed into law House Bill No. 5506 SUB A.  With the stroke of a pen, Rhode Island joined the growing list of states to ban mandatory employer-sponsored meetings regarding religious and “political matters.”

The New Law

Based on its seemingly innocuous title, the new Section 28-7-50 of the Rhode Island General Laws is intended to promote and protect “[e]mployee rights of free speech in the workplace.” However, a closer reading of the new law’s definitions section reveals its true purpose: to impose a sweeping—and likely unconstitutional—ban on “captive audience” meetings.

The law defines “political matters” as “topics that are unrelated to the employer’s business or business activities, such as subjects relating to elections for political office, political parties, [and] proposals to change legislation or regulations which are not directly related to the employer’s business[.]”  However, tacked on to the tail end of the definition of “political matters” is the following language: “a decision whether to join or support any political party, or political, civic, community, fraternal, or labor organization.”  (Emphasis added)

Effective July 2, 2025, Rhode Island employers are prohibited from discharging, disciplining, penalizing (or threatening to discharge, discipline, or penalize) or otherwise taking any adverse employment action against an employee because they refused to attend a mandatory employer-sponsored meeting to learn about the employer’s views and opinions concerning whether employees should join or support a labor union.  In addition, the law goes beyond a mere prohibition on “captive audience” meetings to prohibit employers from taking adverse action against an employee for refusing to listen to a speech or view a communication, including an electronic communication, from the employer regarding the employer’s opinions on unionization.

Aggrieved employees who believe that they have been discharged, disciplined, penalized, or otherwise subjected to an adverse employment action for refusing to subject themselves to the employer’s views and opinions on “political matters” will now have a private right of action to sue their current or former employer. The court may award a prevailing plaintiff “all appropriate relief,” including injunctive relief, back pay, reestablishment of employee benefits (including seniority) to which the employee would have been entitled had the violation not occurred, and monetary damages. Additionally, prevailing plaintiffs will be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.

The New Law’s Preemption Problem

Section 28-7-50 appears to be a solution in search of a problem.  On November 13, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued its landmark decision in Amazon.com Services, LLC, ruling that an employer violates the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by requiring employees, under the threat of discipline or discharge, to attend employer-sponsored meetings for the employer to express its views on unionization.  In doing so, the NLRB overruled 76-year-old precedent that recognized the free speech rights of employers to hold such meetings.  Many keen observers of the NLRB expect the Board, once it regains the quorum of three members required to conduct business, to revisit this decision in an appropriate case and overrule it.

The NLRA preempts state laws that conflict with its provisions or attempt to regulate areas already covered by the NLRA.  This principle is rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws. Specifically, the NLRA preempts state laws that regulate union organizing, collective bargaining, and unfair labor practices, as the NLRA exclusively governs these areas of labor relations.  Accordingly, state-level efforts, such as Section 28-7-50 to ban captive audience meetings, are likely preempted by the NLRA, meaning that the NLRB’s ban on captive audience meetings is controlling and state level regulation in this area is unconstitutional.

The New Law Will Have a Chilling Effect on Employer Free Speech Rights

In addition to federal preemption issues, Section 28-7-50 will have a serious chilling effect on employers seeking to hold voluntary meetings with their employees to discuss whether to join or support a union.  Prior to the NLRB’s November 2024 ruling in Amazon.com Services, LLC, Rhode Island employers held workplace meetings for a wide variety of legitimate purposes:

• Expressing the Employer’s Views and Opinions on Unionization: Employers held “captive audience” meetings to explain their views and opinions on unions, emphasizing why they believed unionization would not be in the best interests of the company or its employees.  These meetings often highlighted the employer’s preference for maintaining open, honest, and direct communication with employees without the involvement of an unnecessary third-party intermediary, such as a union.
• Educating Employees About Unionization: Many employees are often unaware of the implications of unionization, including the potential costs associated with union membership (such as union dues and initiation fees) as well as the challenges of the collective bargaining process.  “Captive audience” meetings were held to address common misconceptions about unionization, employee rights, and employer obligations under the NLRA.
• Addressing Employee Concerns: “Captive audience” meetings provided a valuable opportunity for employers to address specific questions or concerns that employees had about the terms and conditions of their employment and the impacts that unionization would have on those terms and conditions.
• Highlighting Existing Employee Benefits: Employers used “captive audience” meetings to remind employees of the valuable employee benefits they already received, such as paid leave, health insurance, and other perks.  They also used these meetings to emphasize that employee benefits were not guaranteed to improve or change through collective bargaining.
• Countering Union Misinformation Campaigns: Employers used “captive audience” meetings to respond to false, misleading, and inaccurate information shared during unionization campaigns, pointing out that unions can make lofty promises during organizing efforts but cannot guarantee outcomes without the employer’s agreement through collective bargaining.

Section 28-7-50 establishes a new private right of action for current and former employees who feel they have been "penalized" for refusing to attend voluntary informational meetings, listen to speeches about joining or supporting a labor organization, or read electronic communications from their employers regarding unionization. This law may restrict employers' ability to express themselves freely in the workplace. If employers believe that they can only share information that is legally required or necessary for employees to perform their job duties, they could find themselves at a significant disadvantage when facing a rapidly developing unionization campaign.