Real World Impact: One comment can change the entire meeting. Under Maryland's new Worker Freedom Act, effective October 1, 2026, employees may walk out of certain mandatory meetings without fear of discipline. With such an expansive law, employers are bound to have a few questions.
Why does this matter?
For decades, employers have used mandatory, employer-sponsored meetings during union organizing campaigns to communicate their views on unionization. The permissibility of such meetings under federal labor law has varied over the years. In light of this, many states (including Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) have enacted legislation imposing restrictions on captive-audience meetings.
The significance of Maryland's law extends beyond union organizing. Political or religious viewpoints can arise during meetings about legislation, public policy, business operations, or workplace initiatives. Employers should therefore carefully evaluate both the purpose of mandatory meetings and the content likely to be discussed.
What Does This Law Prohibit?
Effective October 1, 2026, employers may not discharge, discipline, penalize, threaten, or otherwise retaliate against employees who refuse to attend, participate in, or listen to mandatory meetings where an employer expresses a political or religious opinion. Put simply, once a mandatory meeting includes an employer's political or religious viewpoint, employees may refuse to participate without fear of discipline. These protections also extend to job applicants, meaning employers may not refuse to hire an individual for declining to attend such meetings.
Importantly, the law focuses on what is said during the meeting, not why the meeting was called. As a result, even an otherwise routine business meeting may fall within the statute if an employer expresses a political or religious viewpoint.
The law takes an expansive view on political and religious matters, extending to topics such as:
- Elections
- Political parties
- Proposed changes in legislation
- The decision to join a political, civic, community, or labor organization
- Religious beliefs
- The decision to join and support a religious organization.
For example, an employer may require employees to attend a lunch-and-learn on phishing risks. During the meeting, the employer states that a particular political party would be more effective at combating phishing schemes, reducing the need for future phishing training. The new law would permit employees at that meeting to walk out without fear of discipline.
While the law does not permit employees to file a lawsuit to redress alleged violations, the Commissioner of Labor and Industry may investigate allegations of violations of the law and may impose fines ranging from $10,000 to $25,000, and award remedies such as reinstatement, back pay, and attorney's fees.
What Is Still Allowed?
There are a few notable exceptions to the law.
- Employers may communicate information they are legally required to provide to employees, such as training required under the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health State Plan.
- Employers may communicate information necessary for employees to perform their jobs, including training on workplace policies, compliance obligations, and how laws and regulations affect employees' day-to-day responsibilities.
- Some employers are exempt from the law. These include religious organizations exempt from Title VII and institutions of higher education that require a professor or student to attend lectures on political or religious matters as part of coursework or an academic program.
- Employers may hold voluntary meetings where they express opinions about political or religious matters.
Importantly, the Act targets an employer's opinions regarding political and religious matters. It does not prohibit employers from communicating factual information. For example, an employer may provide factual information regarding union organizing, collective bargaining, or election procedures. The greater risk arises when the communication shifts from objective facts to the employer's views regarding whether employees should support or oppose unionization.
What Are the Notice Obligations?
The Maryland Department of Labor is expected to publish an official workplace poster and employee notice by November 1, 2026. Employers must conspicuously post the notice where it is accessible to employees and provide a copy to all new hires at the time of hire.
What Challenges Does the Law Face?
The law is in effect, but it may face legal challenges. The two most significant challenges are likely to come from the First Amendment and federal labor law preemption under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Maryland Attorney General concluded that the law was not “clearly unconstitutional” with regard to the First Amendment but that it likely had serious NLRA preemption concerns.
Potential First Amendment Challenge
Opponents will likely argue that the law restricts an employer's right to speak to its employees. Similar arguments have already succeeded elsewhere. A federal court preliminarily enjoined California's captive-audience law (SB 399) on First Amendment grounds. Maryland's law will likely face a similar challenge.
Potential NLRA Preemption Challenge
The stronger challenge may arise under the NLRA. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that states generally cannot regulate conduct that is protected, prohibited, or even arguably protected or prohibited by the NLRA. Because the Board has issued decisions addressing the permissibility of captive-audience meetings, challengers will likely argue that Maryland's law regulates conduct that falls within the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction.