* SJ-R…

On July 31, the Democratic governor [JB Pritzker] signed into law legislation limiting employers’ use of “captive audience” meetings where employees are effectively forced to listen to the political or religious views of their boss.

The “Worker Freedom of Speech Act” goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2025, and does not prohibit businesses from holding these meetings, but rather prevents employers from punishing workers if they choose not to attend them. Illinois became the eighth state, joining states like New York and Minnesota, to pass such a law.

The Illinois Policy Institute argue in their federal suit filed last week that the new law infringes the freedom of speech rights of employers and claim the law is too broad — leaving more companies liable to penalties. Under the new law, the Illinois Department of Labor can issue $1,000 fines per violation and employees can sue.

Some employers, such as political organizations and not-for-organizations with 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) IRS designations, are exempt. The Illinois Policy Institute is a 501(c)(3) and is therefore subject to the law alongside churches and traditional charities.

* From the IPI’s lawsuit…

Plaintiff Illinois Policy Institute (“the Institute”) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that engages in research related to public policy from a perspective that favors, among other things, civil and personal liberties; effective, efficient, honest, and transparent government; limited government; free markets; and workers’ freedom to choose whether to join a labor union.

The Institute regularly conducts mandatory staff meetings at which the organization’s views on questions of public policy are expressed.

The Act now makes those meetings unlawful.

This restriction on the Institute’s ability to speak to its employees about the very subject matter of the organization’s mission violates the Institute’s right to free speech under the First Amendment. […]

In effect, the Act bans the Institute from communicating with its employees during mandatory meetings about “proposals to change legislation, proposals to change regulations, [and] proposals to change public policy”—even though creating such proposals is one of the principal purposes of the Institute.

The Institute is a research organization that publishes policy research on a variety of political topics, including the state budget, jobs, labor, pensions, education, and criminal justice. […]

At the mandatory meetings and mandatory retreats, the Institute has discussed topics such as the Workers’ Rights Amendment, the proposed real estate transfer tax in Chicago, and the Invest in Kids tax credit scholarships.

They’re essentially arguing that the law is a content-based restriction of employer’s speech, and therefore violates the 1st Amendment.

* From the law’s definition section…

“Political matters” means matters relating to elections for political office, political parties, proposals to change legislation, proposals to change regulations, proposals to change public policy, and the decision to join or support any political party or political, civic, community, fraternal, or labor organization.

* From Littler, a pro-employer labor law firm…

Recent state laws similar to SB 3649 have faced legal challenges, and it is anticipated that such laws will likely be struck down in the end, even if the U.S. Supreme Court has to swing the final axe. For example, in New York, a New York District Court enjoined enforcement of legislation limiting employer speech during organizing campaigns. There, the District Court granted a temporary restraining order on the grounds that the legislation as written was facially invalid because it violated the First Amendment in constituting “a viewpoint-based law that discriminates against speech based on the ideas or opinions conveyed.”

Further, Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act provides specific protection for employer speech, stating that “[t]he expressing of any views, argument, or opinion . . . shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice . . . if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” Consequently, SB 3649 may also face challenges on the grounds that it is preempted, insofar as it is contrary to Section 8(c) and interferes with national labor policy (an argument Littler successfully made in Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce almost 15 years ago). In light of the unresolved questions about the legality of SB 3649, employers are forced to choose whether to comply or challenge the new law on constitutional grounds, including federal preemption and First Amendment concerns.

The broader point aside, it’s odd that they didn’t exempt 501(c)(3) organizations.

…Adding… Some union officials I talked with this afternoon claim that IPI is actually exempt and point to this section of the law…

Nothing in this Act… limits the rights of an employer or its agent, representative, or designee from communicating to its employees any information that is necessary for the employees to perform their required job duties