Compliance Stuff

After several months without a functioning quorum, President Trump nominated James Murphy and Scott Mayer to fill vacant seats on the National Labor Relations Board late last week, signaling the potential for a significant course correction of the nation’s labor law landscape. Once confirmed as expected, these nominees could quickly reshape things for employers across the country, especially as many continue to grapple with aggressive union activity, a backlog of Board decisions, and sweeping changes to precedent issued under the prior administration. With the pendulum poised to swing back, employers should start preparing now for what could be a more management-friendly Board. Here is a quick recap and a list of the five most significant cases you should keep your eye on. Trump's Picks and a Path Back to Quorum On July 17, President Trump announced the nominations of two new Board members to fill two of the vacant seats on the NLRB: Scott Mayer, chief labor counsel at a global aer...

The National Labor Relations Board once again lacks a quorum to issue decisions.  T he U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the Trump Administration’s emergency request to stay a lower court’s decision reinstating Board Member Gwynne Wilcox.  Wilcox v. Trump, et al.,  No. 25-5057 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 28, 2025). In a 2-1 decision, the court majority ruled the Trump Administration is likely to demonstrate that President Donald Trump had authority to terminate Wilcox, finding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in  Seila Law,  591 U.S. 197 (2020), controlling . The court explained that while  Humphrey’s Executor,  295 U.S. 602 (1935), upheld the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for federal agency leaders,  Seila Law  subsequently narrowed that decision as applying only to multimember agencies that “do not wield substantial executive power,” and thus is inapplicable to the Board. Wilcox filed a petition for en banc review...

At the end of its recent session, the California Legislature passed SB 399, the “California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act.” S B 399 prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions against employees who decline to attend an employer-sponsored (“captive audience”) meeting, or participate in employer driven communications, where the purpose is to relate the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters. The bill is now on the Governor’s desk. He has until the end of September to sign or veto it . If enacted, California would join a growing list of states attempting to ban “captive audience” meetings about religious and/or political matters. Other states with similar laws include Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. SB 399’s Key Provisions SB 399 would limit an employer’s ability to communicate with employees regarding political or religious matters during mandatory meetings that occur at work. The bill’s ...

One of the latest trends in employment law is prohibitions on captive audience meetings in the workplace. These laws are set up to prevent employers from requiring employee attendance at meetings where the purpose of the meeting is to share the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters, including unionization.  What Are Captive Audience Laws? Captive audience laws prohibit employers from requiring employees to attend meetings where the employer discusses its views on religious, political, or union-related matters. These laws are designed to protect employees from being compelled to listen to such opinions as a condition of their employment. The Historical Role of Captive Audience Meetings in Union Election Campaigns Employers have been permitted for decades to hold captive audience meetings during union election campaigns to deliver to employees their views on unionization under the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision in Babcock v. Wilcox Co., 77 NLRB 5...