AN ACT CONCERNING CAPTIVE AUDIENCE MEETINGS.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 318 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 318.
You're tracking SB 318
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 318 — AN ACT CONCERNING CAPTIVE AUDIENCE MEETINGS.
Last action — FILE NO. 266
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed House
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2022 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
168 added · 17 removed168 line(s) added, 17 removed.
Senate General Assembly RaisedFile Bill No.
318266 February Session, 2022 LCOSenate Bill No.
1679318 ReferredSenate, toApril 4, 2022 The Committee on LABORLabor ANDand PUBLICPublic EMPLOYEESEmployees Introducedreported by:through SEN.
(LAB)KUSHNER ANof ACTthe CONCERNING24th CAPTIVEDist., AUDIENCEChairperson MEETINGS.of the Committee on the part of the Senate, that the bill ought to pass.
AN ACT CONCERNING CAPTIVE AUDIENCE MEETINGS.
and (3) "Rights guaranteed by the first amendment to the United States Constitution or section 3, 4 or 14 of article first of the Constitution of the state" includes, but is not limited to, the right of freedom of speech, LCOSB318 1679/ \\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2022SB-00318-R01File of 3 SB.docx Raised Bill No.
318266 freedom1 ofSB318 religionFile andNo. freedom of association, and shall include the right not to be required to listen to speech.
266 freedom of religion and freedom of association, and shall include the right not to be required to listen to speech.
LCO(4) 1679casual {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2022SB-00312conversations ofbetween 3employees R01-SB.docxor }an Raisedemployee Billand an SB318 / File No.
318266 (4)2 casualSB318 conversationsFile betweenNo. employees or an employee and an agent, representative or designee of an employer, provided participation in such conversations is not required;
266 agent, representative or designee of an employer, provided participation in such conversations is not required;
Section 1 July 1, 2022 Section 1 31-51q LAB Joint Favorable LCOSB318 1679/ {\\PRDFS1\SCOUSERS\FORZANOF\WS\2022SB-00318-File 3No. of 3 R01-SB.docx }
266 3 SB318 File No.
266 The following Fiscal Impact Statement and Bill Analysis are prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and explanation and do not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose.
In general, fiscal impacts are based upon a variety of informational sources, including the analyst’s professional knowledge.
Whenever applicable, agency data is consulted as part of the analysis, however final products do not necessarily reflect an assessment from any specific department.
OFA Fiscal Note State Impact:
Agency Affected Fund-Effect FY 23 $ FY 24 $ Labor Dept.
GF - Potential Minimal Minimal Revenue Gain Note:
GF=General Fund Municipal Impact:
None Explanation The bill, which prohibits employers from penalizing or threatening to penalize an employee for not attending captive audience meetings, results in a potential minimal revenue gain to the extent there are violations proven in court.
1 The bill allows aggrieved parties to bring an action in court over alleged violations, which does not result in any cost impact.
The court system disposes of over 400,000 cases annually and the number of cases is not anticipated to be great enough to have a material change on court operations.
The bill has no cost impact to the state or municipalities as employers as it is anticipated that these entities would not violate the provisions of the bill.
The Out Years The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would continue into the future.
1Under the bill a violator is liable to the affected employee for damages caused by the prohibited action, including punitive damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees, as well as subject to a $300 civil penalty imposed by the Department of Labor.
SB318 / File No.
266 4 SB318 File No.
266 OLR Bill Analysis SB 318 AN ACT CONCERNING CAPTIVE AUDIENCE MEETINGS.
SUMMARY This bill generally prohibits employers, including the state and its political subdivisions, from disciplining or discharging (i.e., penalizing) an employee or threatening to do so because the employee refused to attend employer-sponsored meetings, listen to speech, or view communications primarily intended to convey the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters (i.e., “captive audience meetings”;
see BACKGROUND).
The prohibition covers meetings with the employer or its agent, representative, or a designee.
Current law prohibits employers from penalizing employees for exercising their First Amendment rights under the U.S.
Constitution or similar rights under the Connecticut Constitution.
The bill specifies that these rights include the right to (1) free speech, (2) freedom of religion, (3) freedom of association, and (4) freedom from the requirement to listen to speech.
It also expands the law to prohibit employers from threatening to penalize employees for exercising these rights.
By law and unchanged by the bill, an employee may exercise these rights as longhisorheractivitydoesnotsubstantially ormateriallyinterferewith the bona fide job performance or the working relationship between the employer and employee.
The bill provides certain exceptions to both its prohibition on penalizing employees for refusing to attend captive audience meetings and current law’s prohibition on penalizing employees for exercising their constitutional rights.
Among other things, these exceptions allow employers to communicate information required by law or that the employees need to perform their jobs.
It also exempts certain religious SB318 / File No.
Show all 80 changed lines (40 more)
266 5 SB318 File No.
266 organizations’ speech on religious matters made to their own employees.
Under the bill, the same enforcement provisions that apply to the law on penalizing employees for exercising certain constitutional rights also apply to the bill’s prohibition on penalizing employees for refusing to attend captive audience meetings.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
July 1, 2022 POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS MATTERS DEFINED Under the bill, “political matters” relate to (1) elections for political office,(2)politicalparties,(3)legislation,(4)regulation,and(5)decisions to join or support a political party or political, civil, community, fraternal, or labor organization.
“Religious matters” relate to (1) religious affiliation and practice and (2) decisions to join or support a religious organization or association.
EXEMPTIONS The bill allows exceptions to both its prohibition on penalizing employees for refusing to attend captive audience meetings and current law’s prohibition on penalizing employees for exercising certain constitutional rights.
It explicitly permits the following:
1.
an employer or its agent, representative, or designee to communicate to employees information (a) required by law, but only to the extent of the legal requirement, or (b) the employees need to perform their job duties;
2.
a higher education institution, or its agent, representative, or designee to meet or participate in communications with employees that are part of coursework, a symposia, or an academic program at the institution;
3.
voluntary, casual conversations between employees or between an employee and an employer’s agent, representative, or designee;
or SB318 / File No.
266 6 SB318 File No.
266 4.
a requirement that is limited to the employer’s managerial and supervisory employees.
The bill also exempts, under certain circumstances, a religious corporation, entity, association, education institution, or society that is exempt from (1) the federal Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of religious discrimination in employment or (2) the state’s prohibitions on discriminatory employment practices and sexual orientation discrimination under the Connecticut Human Rights Act and related contracting provisions.
The exemption applies to speech on religious matters to employees who perform work connected with carrying on the organizations’ activities.
ENFORCEMENT Current law’s prohibition on employers penalizing employees for exercising certain constitutional rights makes an employer liable to the affected employee for damages caused by the prohibited action, including punitive damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees.
These employers are also liable for a $300 civil penalty imposed by the Department of Labor (CGS § 31-69a).
The bill extends these liability provisions to employers who (1) penalize employees or threaten to do so for refusing to attend, listen to, or watch a captive audience meeting or (2) threaten to penalize employees for exercising their First Amendment rights.
As under existing law, if a court determines that the action was brought without substantial justification, it may award the employer costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
BACKGROUND Captive Audience Meetings and Federal Preemption The federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) governs private- sector union organizing and collective bargaining rights and delineates unfair labor practices.
The NLRA created the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to administer the law and rule on specific cases alleging unfair labor practices.
SB318 / File No.
266 7 SB318 File No.
266 The NLRB and federal courts have generally allowed captive audience meetings as long as they are held more than 24 hours before a union election and the employer does not commit an unfair labor practice, such as threatening reprisal for supporting a union (e.g., Peerless Plywood Co., 107 NLRB 427 (1953);
Linn v.
United Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S.
53 (1966);
and Chamber of Commerce v.
Brown, 554 U.S.
(2008)).
In 2018, Attorney General Jepsen issued a formal opinion on HB 5473 (2018), which would have prohibited employers from holding captive audience meetings, and concluded that a court would likely determine that the bill is preempted by federal law (Opinion 2018-02).
In 2019, Attorney General Tong issued a formal opinion on SB 440, which was substantially similar to this bill (SB 318), and concluded that, “[a]s a generally applicable state law aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of all Connecticut employees,” it could be “fairly defended as outside the scope of NLRA preemption” (Opinion 2019-03).
Related Bill sSB 163, reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, contains substantially similar provisions to this bill.
COMMITTEE ACTION Labor and Public Employees Committee Joint Favorable Yea 9 Nay 4 (03/22/2022) SB318 / File No.
266 8
Show all 80 changed rows (40 more)
Action History
-
FILE NO. 266
-
SENATE CALENDAR NUMBER 220
-
FAV. RPT., TAB. FOR CAL., SEN.
-
RPTD. OUT OF LCO
-
REFERRED TO Office of Legislative Research AND Office of Fiscal Analysis 04/04/22
-
FILED WITH LCO
-
Joint Favorable
-
PUBLIC HEARING 0308
-
REF. TO JOINT COMM. ON Labor and Public Employees
Sponsors
- Bobby G. Gibson · Primary
- Anne M. Hughes · Primary
- Charlie L. Stallworth · Primary
- Minnie Gonzalez · Primary
- Joshua M. Hall · Primary
- Michael A. Winkler · Primary
- Martin M. Looney · Primary
- David Michel · Primary
- Brian T. Smith · Primary
- Robyn A. Porter · Primary
- Travis Simms · Primary
- John "jack" F. Hennessy · Primary
- Bob Duff · Primary
- Anthony L. Nolan · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →14 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 173 not signed on
Sponsors (14)
- Bobby G. Gibson Democratic
- Anne M. Hughes Democratic
- Stallworth, Charlie L.
- Minnie Gonzalez Democratic
- Joshua M. Hall Democratic
- Winkler, Michael A.
- Martin M. Looney Democratic
- Michel, David
- Smith, Brian T.
- Porter, Robyn A.
- Travis Simms Democratic
- Hennessy, John "jack" F.
- Bob Duff Democratic
- Anthony L. Nolan Democratic
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (173)
173 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 173 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors SB 318?
- SB 318 is sponsored by Bobby G. Gibson (Democratic), Anne M. Hughes (Democratic), Stallworth, Charlie L., Minnie Gonzalez (Democratic), Joshua M. Hall (Democratic), Winkler, Michael A., Martin M. Looney (Democratic), Michel, David, Smith, Brian T., Porter, Robyn A., Travis Simms (Democratic), Hennessy, John "jack" F., Bob Duff (Democratic), and Anthony L. Nolan (Democratic).
- What is the current status of SB 318?
- This bill died with 2022 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 318?
- Track SB 318 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 318
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 318
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →