State and Federal Protections

Under California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102, employers are prohibited from acting against their employees based on their political beliefs and activities.

California’s Labor Code section 1101 prohibits employers from adopting or enforcing any rule, regulation or policy that:

• Forbids or prevents employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
• Controls or directs, or tends to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

California Labor Code section 1102 provides that 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.”

In addition, Labor Code section 96(k) allows employees to bring claims for lost wages when they are disciplined or discharged for lawful conduct during non-working hours.

In one case, a California court found that a newspaper editor who was fired after publicly stating his support for a mayoral candidate had a cause of action for wrongful termination.1 The court noted that the Labor Code “reinforces the substantial public interest in protecting the ‘fundamental right’ of employees to engage in political activity without interference or threat of retaliation from employers.”

Federal protections might also apply. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which applies to both union and nonunion employers, protects workers who engage in “concerted activity,” which generally means that employees are protected when they work together to take actions related to the terms and conditions of their employment, such as improving wages, workplace safety, benefits (such as health care or leave) and similar issues.

For example, an employee may support a candidate because the candidate wants to increase the minimum wage, and the employee talks with her co-workers about the impact that candidate’s platform could have on working conditions.

It’s certainly not a stretch to imagine how presidential or party platforms may impact employee working conditions. In Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a union letter, which, in part, urged employees to vote out candidates who opposed the minimum wage, was protected section 7 activity.2

In other circumstances, the question is more difficult. For example, if workers walk off the job to participate in a general rally opposing the current administration, it is less likely that they are organizing together to try and improve their working conditions. In this situation, NLRA protections might not apply to the employees’ behavior.

Given the difficulty of determining whether the activity is protected, employers should proceed with caution and consult with counsel before taking any disciplinary action. Each situation may be different, and employee participation may or may not be protected. Also, blanket statements that the employees cannot participate without jeopardizing their jobs may not pass legal muster.

For more information, see National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Employers are still allowed to manage performance, attendance and effectiveness at the job. Policies must be clear, job-related and implemented consistently. Decisions must be based on objective documentation, and employers do not want to be in a position where it appears they have been targeting only employees of one political affiliation or another.

Employer Ability to Share Political Information

Generally, employers may communicate with employees about political issues that may have an impact on the workplace, jobs, the economy and the employees themselves. However, employers should do so with due caution, carefully considering how they communicate information on political matters and ensuring any related meetings comply with both state and federal law.

Certain actions are specifically prohibited by state law or regulations:

• You cannot give anyone a gift, money, loan or other valuable consideration in return for the person’s vote for or against a person or measure (Elections Code 18521).
• You cannot reward anyone with a gift or money for voting or for not voting (Elections Code 18522).
• It is a misdemeanor to include in an employee’s pay envelope any written materials about candidates or political arguments that would influence the political opinions or actions of employees (Elections Code 18542).
• Employers cannot control or direct the political activities or affiliation of employees (Labor Code 1101).
• Employers cannot coerce or influence or attempt to influence by threats of discharge or loss of employment a particular political activity or political action (Labor Code 1102).

Additionally, there have been recent efforts to restrict employers’ speech in mandatory employer-sponsored meetings.

• On September 30, 2025, a federal district court enjoined enforcement of a California law that took effect on January 1, 2025, placing certain restrictions on employers’ speech regarding political and religious matters. The law prohibited an employer from subjecting, or threatening to subject, an employee to discrimination, retaliation or any adverse action because the employee declines to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or affirmatively declines to participate in, receive or listen to any employer communications about the employer’s opinion on religious or political matters, terms defined broadly and included, among other things, communications about labor organizations.3

The district court ultimately found that the law impermissibly infringed on employers’ speech rights in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and is also preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Though the state law was enjoined, the federal National Labor Relations Board, which enforces the NLRA, issued a decision on November 13, 2024, ruling that an employer violates the NLRA by requiring employees to attend a meeting at which the employer expresses its views on unionization. The Board established a safe harbor for employers, however, if the employer informs employees in advance of the following:

• The employer intends to express its views on unionization at a meeting at which attendance is voluntary;
• Employees will not be subject to discipline, discharge, or other adverse consequences for failing to attend the meeting or for leaving the meeting; and
• The employer will not keep records of which employees attend, fail to attend, or leave the meeting.

Employers should consult with legal counsel if they plan on holding mandatory meetings to discuss unionization or other political matters to help ensure compliance with the law.

Time Off for Voting

All employers must allow an employee up to two hours, without loss of pay, to vote in a statewide election if the employee does not have sufficient time outside of work to do so.

For more information, see Voting Leave.

1. Ali v. L.A. Focus Publication, 112 Cal. App. 4th 1477 (2003)