Procedural Ruling Stalls ‘Captive Audience’ Suit

The constitutionality of a controversial Connecticut law restricting workplace communications remains in question following a judge’s ruling this week.

In a procedural ruling issued Feb. 13, U.S. District Court Judge Kari Dooley granted the state’s summary judgment motion in a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s so-called captive audience law.

The suit was filed in November 2022, four months after the state legislature approved the law following a decade-plus of failed attempts to pass similar legislation.

CBIA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, National Retail Federation, Connecticut Retail Merchants Association, Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, National Association of Home Builders, Associated Builders and Contractors, and Associated Builders and Contractors of Connecticut were all part of the coalition that brought the suit.

Dooley ruled that CBIA’s assertion as an organizational standing plaintiff—meaning the organization was directly injured as opposed to association members whose members were injured—lacked standing because the state Department of Labor had exempted the organization from the law, albeit after the suit was filed. 

“As the DOL has explicitly indicated that it will not enforce Section 31-51q against CBIA for its intended conduct … plaintiffs cannot establish that CBIA has a credible fear of enforcement,” she wrote in the decision.

‘Constitutional Rights’

The Connecticut law threatens employers with liability for speaking with employees about a range of important workplace issues, including pending laws or regulations.

It drastically restricts employers from communicating with employees about “political matters,” with that term broadly defined to include legislative and regulatory proposals and participation in civic and community organizations.

CBIA president and CEO Chris DiPentima said the organization joined the lawsuit to “protect the constitutional rights of employers to manage their workplaces free from government overreach.”

“We remain confident this law is unconstitutional—a conclusion already reached by courts in other states.”

CBIA’s Chris DiPentima

DiPentima expressed disappointment that Dooley did not rule on the constitutionality of Conencticut’s captive audience law.

“We remain confident this law is unconstitutional as it violates both Article VI—federal preemption—and the First Amendment’s freedom of speech protections—a conclusion already reached by courts in other states reviewing nearly identical restrictions on employer workplace communications,” he said. 

“The court’s decision addressed only the procedural organizational standing of CBIA, not the association standing of all plaintiffs, and did not reach the substance of those constitutional claims. 

“We will continue advocating for the rights of employers to manage their workplaces free from government overreach and are reviewing further options for challenging the law’s constitutionality.”

California Ruling

Last September—in the first federal court decision addressing the merits of challenges to captive audience laws—a judge blocked enforcement of a new California law.

The California statute, which took effect Jan. 1, 2025, is materially identical to Connecticut’s law.

In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Calabretta called the California law “a content-based regulation of speech that cannot withstand strict scrutiny” and “risks chilling one side of the debate between labor and management.”

“SB 399 risks interfering with employers’ statutory and First Amendment rights to express their opinions on whether or not to join a labor organization, or from otherwise engaging in noncoercive speech,” Calabretta noted in his 35-page decision.

“The outcome of the appeal may have some bearing regarding the constitutionality of Connecticut’s largely identical statute.”

Judge Kari Dooley

Calabretta also agreed with claims by business groups that the law was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, a claim made in the Connecticut suit.

In a footnote to her ruling, Dooley referenced the California decision, calling it “both thorough and well-reasoned.”

“Further, it addresses many of the same issues raised and thoroughly briefed in this case. An appeal of the district court’s decision is presently pending before the Ninth Circuit,” she added.

“And the outcome of the appeal, however it is decided, may have some bearing, or at least provide persuasive authority, regarding the constitutionality of Connecticut’s largely identical statute.”