Source: https://www.littler.com/political-speech-and-activity-workplace-2014-midterms-are-here
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:47:43+00:00

Document:
Political Speech and Activity in the Workplace: The 2014 Midterms are Here | Littler Mendelson P.C.
Election season can be a heated time. In many contexts, this can mean arguments with friends, family, and acquaintances. It can also mean added tension and disagreement in the workplace. In some cases, employers may seek to minimize political discussions at work. In others, employers themselves may try to introduce politics into the workplace. Regardless of whether an employee may engage in political activity in the workplace, employees may have rights to conduct political activities outside of work, and to take time off from work, where needed, to vote in an election.
On November 4, 2014, voters around the country will head to polling places to vote for candidates for the U.S. House and Senate, and for representatives at the state and local levels. Indeed, in several states, voting has already begun with the casting of absentee ballots and vote-by-mail ballots, and early voting at polling stations open before Election Day. Because these elections determine control of legislative bodies or governors' mansions, a host of candidates, political parties, and independent committees have encouraged voters to contribute, volunteer, and express their political preferences by talking to their friends and neighbors. Naturally, individuals may also bring their political preferences to work. How should employers respond in these circumstances?
It is a federal crime to interfere with an individual's ability to vote for federal candidates, or to coerce that individual to cast a ballot in a specific way.1 Similarly, it is unlawful to bribe or offer an "expenditure" to an individual in exchange for voting a certain way.2 Obviously, employers and their agents should refrain from doing either with respect to their employees.
While the nexus is not always clear between the political advocacy and the benefit to workers, the General Counsel for the NLRB has offered guidance that includes the example of an employee attending a demonstration in favor of immigration reform as being protected by Section 7. According to the General Counsel, because employment verification legislation could be deemed to chill even legal hiring activity, the demonstration sufficiently relates to the employees' "mutual aid or protection"6 To the extent an employer is not sure about whether an employee's political advocacy is protected by Section 7, the best course is to contact counsel.
Other than these prohibitions on employer misconduct, much of the law varies by state. We address several areas of the relevant law below, but urge you to consult counsel about your specific state's laws and to take steps to ensure your company's compliance with those laws.
Because political discussions often involve salient personal issues for employees, even a small disagreement can quickly erupt into a heated argument among employees. This can have serious consequences for productivity, employee morale, and working relationships. Many employers therefore try to minimize such discussions.
Generally, private employers have wide latitude to limit or prohibit political discussions in the workplace, simply because there is no First Amendment right or statutory regime at play in most circumstances.10 Similarly, many employers adopt policies that preclude employees from initiating political conversations with clients or vendors. While a complete prohibition on political speech may seem draconian, advising employees that political discussions should be limited generally appears reasonable. This is because a limit on political speech in the workplace will often benefit employees of all political stripes, since there are workplace partisans on both sides of the political aisle.
Moreover, because companies generally have a property interest in their resources, employers often prohibit employees from using company property (like computers, printers, and office supplies) for political activities. They often also restrict employees from using the employer's telephones for political fundraising, or making campaign calls to potential voters. For the 2014 midterms and beyond, it is important for employers to have written, formal policies regarding such usage, even if it is encompassed in a broader limitation on the personal use of employer resources.
The line between an employer's free expression under the First Amendment and coercion is blurred, particularly where the employer's own financial fortunes are mentioned. In the context of 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), which prohibits employers from using threats or coercion against employees considering unionization, courts have tried to draw a fine line between an employer's mere predictions of negative consequences for the business, and outright threats to employees.13 The former are protected by the First Amendment, while the latter are not. While the same distinction likely carries analogous force in the political speech context, courts can be unpredictable in defining the contours of permissible employer statements.
Moreover, because political communications are often broadcast to a number of employees, they present a unique problem in employment litigation. Employees who bring lawsuits may allege, in addition to their other claims, that they felt coerced by corporate officials with respect to voting or political contributions. Thus, even where an employer may have a strong defense to a race- or gender-based claim brought by an employee, a secondary claim for impermissible political coercion can add negotiating power to a plaintiff's settlement demands.
Thus, in many cases, even when an employer's political speech may be legal, it is often the best course of action to avoid political activity in the workplace. As noted above, strong emotions can be associated with political speech, and the workplace can suffer from distractions due to political disagreements and dissension, particularly if employees disagree with the political speech of their employer or its agents.
Whether an employee is entitled to take leave—and whether that leave is paid or unpaid—varies greatly among states, and often depends on the specific hours polls are open in a jurisdiction, as well as the employee's work schedule.16 Thus, for many employees who are able to vote before or after their work shifts—often defined as having somewhere between one to three hours of non-working time while polls are open—these laws have little effect on employers.
Ensure that employees are not discouraged by supervisors from voting or engaging in political activity outside of the workplace.
1 18 U.S.C. § 594.
2 18 U.S.C. § 597.
4 Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 564-65 (1978).
5 R. Meisburg, Guideline Memorandum Concerning Unfair Labor Practice Charges Involving Political Advocacy, Memorandum GC 08-10 at p.12 (Jul. 22, 2008, linked here) (noting that "partial or intermittent strikes, sit-down strikes, and work slowdowns are unprotected regardless of the employees' objectives").
7 The Hidden Union Access and Solicitation Pitfalls Associated With Employer Corporate PACs, Bloomberg BNA Daily Labor Report, Feb. 14, 2014.
8 2 U.S.C. § 441b(b)(3)(A).
9 2 U.S.C. § 441f.
10 Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2004) (rejecting civil conspiracy claim with respect to private employer under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) for lack of state action).
11 W. Va. Code § 3-9-15; see also W. Va. Code § 3-8-11 (information "containing any threat, either express or implied, intended or calculated to influence the political view or actions of the workmen or employees" is punishable criminally).
12 Cal. Labor Code § 1102.
13 GE v. NLRB, 117 F.3d 627, 630-31 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
14 Cal. Elec. Code § 14001.
16 O.C.G.A. § 21-2-404 (Ga. 2014) ("[I]f the hours of work of such employee commence at least two hours after the opening of the polls or end at least two hours prior to the closing of the polls, then the time off for voting as provided for in this Code section shall not be available."); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-7-102(2) ("This section shall not apply to any person whose hours of employment on the day of the election are such that there are three or more hours between the time of opening and the time of closing of the polls during which the elector is not required to be on the job.").
17 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-13-719.
18 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-13-111.
20 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.637(6) (defining class four elections offense to include an employer "making, enforcing, or attempting to enforce any order, rule, or regulation or adopting any other device or method to prevent an employee from engaging in political activities); Cal. Labor Code § 1101(a) ("No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy … [f]orbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.").
Ilyse Schuman, co-chair of Littler's Workplace Policy Institute® (WPI™), and Joshua Waxman, are Shareholders in Littler's Washington, DC office; Michael Lotito, co-chair of the WPI, is a Shareholder in the San Francisco office; and William Trachman is an Associate in the Denver office. Littler's WPI is devoted to developing and influencing workplace legislative and regulatory developments at the federal and state levels. WPI provides the employer community with advocacy services, including litigation support. In addition, WPI closely monitors important labor, employment, and benefits policy initiatives and provides clients, trade associations, and policymakers with timely and thoughtful analysis of the practical implications of such proposals. If you would like further information, please contact your Littler attorney at 1.888.Littler, info@littler.com, Ms. Schuman at ischuman@littler.com, Mr. Lotito at mlotito@littler.com, Mr. Waxman at jwaxman@littler.com, or Mr. Trachman at wtrachman@littler.com.

References: § 158
 § 594
 § 597
 v. 
 § 441
 § 441
 v. 
 § 1985
 § 3
 § 3
 § 1102
 v. 
 § 14001
 § 21
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 115
 § 1101