Yes, for now, a California employer can require attendance at a meeting where it shares its views on politics or religion without the State enforcing SB 399 against it. On October 29, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction that bars the Attorney General, the Labor Commissioner, and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement from enforcing Labor Code section 1137. That’s a temporary order, not a final judgment, and it doesn’t speak to private lawsuits by employees. The exposure hasn’t disappeared. It has narrowed.
What did the Ninth Circuit decide in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta?
The case is California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 25-6874, decided by Judges Richard A. Paez, Richard C. Tallman, and Mark J. Bennett, with Judge Tallman writing. The opinion is published.
Three business groups sued before the law took effect. The district court granted a preliminary injunction on September 30, 2025. A preliminary injunction is an order that holds things in place while a case is decided. It isn’t a ruling that the law is unconstitutional for good.
On appeal, the panel held that the business groups “are likely to succeed on the merits of the First Amendment claim.” It rejected the State’s argument that SB 399 regulates only conduct. In the court’s words, “Because employers are forbidden from taking adverse action only if they communicate certain messages at the underlying meeting, the law inevitably singles out employers based on their expressive activity.” It then applied strict scrutiny, the hardest test a law can face, and rejected California’s captive audience justification: “No federal appellate court, including the Supreme Court, has relied on a ‘captive audience’ theory to identify a compelling interest sufficient to support a content-based restriction on nongovernmental speech in a nongovernmental forum.”
The panel also said what it didn’t decide. The opinion states, “We need not (and do not) address preemption.” The district court had also found SB 399 likely preempted by the National Labor Relations Act as to meetings about unionization. The Ninth Circuit left that question open.
What does Labor Code section 1137 prohibit?
SB 399 (Stats. 2024, ch. 670) added Labor Code section 1137, effective January 1, 2025. The core of it, subdivision (c), says an employer “shall not subject, or threaten to subject, an employee to discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or any other adverse action because the employee declines to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or affirmatively declines to participate in, receive, or listen to any communications with the employer or its agents or representatives, the purpose of which is to communicate the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters.”
The statute defines “political matters” broadly. It covers “matters relating to elections for political office, political parties, legislation, regulation, and the decision to join or support any political party or political or labor organization.” So a meeting about a union campaign falls inside the statute, and so does a meeting about a bill that would raise the company’s costs.
Section 1137 carries a civil penalty of “five hundred dollars ($500) per employee for each violation,” lets the Labor Commissioner investigate and cite employers, and gives employees their own lawsuit for damages “including punitive damages.”
Who is actually blocked from enforcing SB 399?
The State is. The employees aren’t named. The district court’s order enjoins the Attorney General, the Labor Commissioner, and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, along with their agents and “others in active concert or participation with any of them,” from “enforcing California Labor Code section 1137 pending further order of this Court.”
That leaves a gap employers should know about. Section 1137(f) lets an employee sue on their own, and the order doesn’t name private employees. The Ninth Circuit relied on private enforcement itself. In deciding that at least one of the business groups, the Western Growers Association, had standing, it said California “delegates enforcement authority to any employee who believes they have suffered a violation of the law.”
An employee who files that lawsuit could file it in state court, and section 1137(f)(2) points employees to the superior court for temporary relief. California courts aren’t bound by the Ninth Circuit on a federal constitutional question. In People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394, the California Supreme Court described its rule with a quotation from People v. Crittenden (1994): “we are not bound by decisions of the lower federal courts, even on federal questions.” The same passage cites another decision calling those rulings “persuasive and entitled to great weight.”
I don’t think that gap is large. An employer sued under section 1137 today would raise the First Amendment as a defense, and it would be relying on a published circuit opinion and a district court order that reached the same result. But “unlikely” isn’t “impossible,” and a punitive damages claim is expensive to defend even when you win.
What can a California employer do about mandatory meetings right now?
Most of what employers do in meetings was never covered by SB 399. The statute’s own exceptions say it doesn’t stop an employer from communicating information “that the employer is required by law to communicate, but only to the extent of that legal requirement,” or information “that is necessary for those employees to perform their job duties.” Section 1137(h) also excludes training that’s required “to comply with the employer’s legal obligations, including obligations under civil rights laws and occupational safety and health laws.” Safety meetings, harassment prevention training, and operations meetings were never the target of SB 399.
The harder question is the all-hands meeting about a ballot measure, a bill, or a union drive. With the injunction in place, the State can’t penalize it. Here’s my practical advice anyway: if the meeting is about politics, make attendance voluntary in writing, pay the time, and don’t track who shows up. The Ninth Circuit described how California itself argued that an “all-hands” label can carry an implied threat, depending on the workplace’s history and culture. You don’t want to be the test case if the injunction is ever lifted.
Two older California statutes are untouched by this case. Labor Code section 1101 bars any policy “Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.” Labor Code section 1102 says no employer shall “coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” The lawsuit challenged section 1137 only, and the injunction doesn’t reach either of them. A meeting that pressures employees to vote a certain way, backed by a threat to their jobs, is a problem under section 1102 whatever happens to SB 399.
Meetings about unionization raise separate federal labor law questions that this ruling doesn’t answer. Get advice before holding one.
Where does the case go from here?
The fight isn’t over. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40, a party may ask for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc (review by a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges) “within 14 days after judgment is entered.” Under Supreme Court Rule 13, a petition for certiorari is timely if filed “within 90 days after entry of the judgment.”
Even if the State takes neither step, the case goes back to the district court for a ruling on the merits. The injunction lasts “pending further order” of that court. The business groups asked for a permanent injunction. The district court could grant one, or the State could prevail on a fuller record. I’d plan for the injunction to hold, but I wouldn’t build a policy that only works if it does.
If an employee says they were punished for skipping a meeting
A complaint about a missed meeting is still a retaliation complaint, and it should be handled like one:
- Put a litigation hold on the meeting invitation, any agenda or slides, attendance records, and the emails and texts about the meeting, along with the employee’s personnel file.
- Calendar the response deadline on any demand letter, agency notice, or summons, and check for an arbitration agreement and an employment practices liability (EPLI) policy with notice terms.
- Identify who decided to hold the meeting and who made any decision about the employee afterward, and stop further action against the employee that could look like payback.
- Pull the documents that show what the meeting was actually about and the separate, documented reason for any discipline.
- Talk to a lawyer before responding, before contacting the employee or the employee’s lawyer, and before offering anything to settle.
Rosenberger + Kawabata’s page on California employment defense explains how the firm handles retaliation claims and agency charges brought against employers.
SB 399 questions from California employers
Is SB 399 still the law in California?
Yes. Section 1137 remains in the Labor Code. A court hasn’t struck it down. The State is barred from enforcing it while the injunction stands, which is different from repeal. If the injunction is lifted or narrowed, the State could enforce it again, so watch the case rather than assume the statute is gone.
Can an employee still sue under Labor Code section 1137?
The statute still gives employees a private lawsuit, and the injunction doesn’t name them. An employer sued that way would raise the First Amendment as a defense, backed by the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning. A state court isn’t required to follow the Ninth Circuit on that question, though, so the risk isn’t zero.
Does this ruling let us require attendance at union meetings?
Not by itself. The Ninth Circuit didn’t decide whether federal labor law controls meetings about unionization, and federal labor law has its own rules for those meetings. Treat any mandatory meeting about a union campaign as a federal labor question first, and get advice before scheduling it.
When a missed-meeting complaint reaches your desk
If an employee says they were disciplined or let go for skipping a meeting about politics, religion, or a union, the invitation, the attendance records, and the reason documented for the discipline usually decide how serious the claim is. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims over mandatory workplace meetings. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The decision is California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2026, No. 25-6874), published. The injunction it affirmed is the order of September 30, 2025 in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, No. 2:24-cv-03798 (E.D. Cal.). The statutes are Labor Code section 1137, Labor Code section 1101, and Labor Code section 1102. The rule on state courts and federal decisions is from People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal.4th 394. The deadlines for further review are in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40 and Supreme Court Rule 13.
This post is general information about California and federal employment law as of November 5, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.