Littler Mendelson Advises Employers to Challenge New Rhode Island Union Meeting Ban

Littler Mendelson recently hosted a webinar for employers. The topic was Rhode Island’s new workplace speech law. The firm suggested clients could consider ignoring the statute.

This new law bans mandatory meetings about politics, religion, or union organizing. According to the American Prospect, attorneys from the firm called these meetings highly effective. They then discussed strategies to challenge the law’s validity.

Firm Presents Case for Defying State Statute

The webinar was titled “Captive No More.” Attorneys Jillian Folger-Hartwell and Gregory Tumolo led the presentation. They acknowledged advising clients to break a law is rare.

Folger-Hartwell stated it is a choice employers can make. She said this option is for those who are “risk tolerant.” The firm believes there are strong constitutional arguments against the law.

Ignoring the statute would create a legal vehicle for a challenge. This strategy would, however, expose employers to potential litigation. The firm presented this as a calculated risk.

Legal Landscape Surrounding Captive Audiences Remains Unclear

The federal precedent on such meetings is currently murky. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under President Biden banned mandatory attendance. This was in a case involving Amazon.

Employers can still hold these meetings voluntarily. They cannot discipline workers for not attending. A Trump-era official later rescinded a related policy memo.

That action did not overturn the Amazon decision. That ruling remains in effect. The NLRB currently lacks a quorum, adding further uncertainty.

Littler attorneys expressed confidence in their legal position. Tumolo noted the historical lawfulness of mandatory meetings. He emphasized the firm’s view of the law’s constitutional problems.

Broader Implications for Labor Relations and Law

Patrick Crowley of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO provided analysis. He believes the webinar’s goal was to find a client for a test case. The ultimate target could be the U.S. Supreme Court.

A successful challenge could impact similar laws in other states. It would also strengthen employers’ hands in unionization campaigns. The strategy relies on the current conservative judicial landscape.

This approach is costly and time-consuming for any employer. It represents a significant escalation in labor-related legal tactics. The situation continues to develop.

Littler Mendelson’s controversial guidance places employers at a crossroads between compliance and confrontation. The future of the Rhode Island workplace speech law now likely depends on a willing test case. This legal battle could redefine union organizing rules nationwide.

Info at your fingertips

What is Rhode Island’s new workplace speech law?

It is a state law banning mandatory employee meetings. These meetings cannot discuss political or religious matters. This includes discussions about joining or supporting a labor union.

What did Littler Mendelson advise employers to do?

The law firm suggested employers could choose to ignore the new law. They stated this could be a vehicle for a legal challenge. This advice was given during a public webinar.

Are captive audience meetings legal at the federal level?

The legality is currently unclear. The NLRB ruled against mandatory attendance in a key case. That decision is now on appeal to the 11th Circuit Court.

What are the risks for an employer who ignores this law?

An employer would face immediate litigation from employees or unions. They could also be subject to penalties and fines under the state statute. It is a high-risk legal strategy.

Why does the firm believe the law is unconstitutional?

Littler attorneys argue it infringes on employer free speech rights. They claim it violates the First Amendment. These arguments have not yet been tested in court.

Who is expected to challenge this law?

Legal experts expect a business or employer group to file a suit. The goal would be to get the statute overturned. A court challenge is considered highly likely.