Biglaw
firm
Littler
Mendelson
has
a
reputation
for
being
among
the
top
Labor
&
Employment
practices.
Indeed,
they’ve
repeatedly
taken
top
honors
in
the
Vault
ranking
in
the
category.
And
that
tradition
of
representing
employers
was
on
display
during
a
recent
webinar.
The
presentation,
Captive
No
More:
What
Rhode
Island’s
New
Workplace
Speech
Law
Means
for
Employers,
(CLE
credit
pending!)
was
touted
on
the
firm’s
website
and
was
designed
to
provide
insight
on
Rhode
Island’s
ban
on
“mandatory
workplace
meetings
to
discuss
political
or
religious
matters,
including
whether
employees
should
join
or
support
a
labor
union.”
The
American
Prospect
obtained
details
of
what
was
said
during
the
webinar
and
the
attorneys
who
presented
—
Jillian
Folger-Hartwell
ad
Gregory
Tumolo
—
say
the
“mandatory
employee
education
meetings”
are
“one
of
the
most
effective
ways
for
employers
to
communicate
with
employees
freely
to
correct
misperceptions
and
combat
union
propaganda.”
And
made
it
clear
ignoring
the
law
is
on
the
table.
“We
are
not
in
the
habit
of
advising
you
lightly
that
you
should
challenge
laws,”
said
Jillian
Folger-Hartwell,
an
attorney
with
leading
anti-union
law
firm
Littler
Mendelson
on
the
August
19
webinar,
a
transcript
and
PowerPoint
presentation
of
which
the Prospect exclusively
obtained.
But
“if
you
are
a
bit
more
risk
tolerant,
and
you
want
to
continue”
to
hold
the
meetings,
“that
is
a
choice
that
you
can
make.”While
acknowledging
that
this
would
expose
employers
to
litigation,
Folger-Hartwell
explained
her
firm’s
view
that
there
are
“strong
arguments”
that
the
law
is
unconstitutional,
and
that
ignoring
it
would
be
a
“vehicle”
for
a
legal
challenge.
Sure…
breaking
the
law
is
always
a
“choice,”
but
it’s
not
one
Biglaw
lawyers
are
usually
this
frank
about.
Remember,
this
wasn’t
advice
given
behind
a
closed
door
and
attaching
attorney/client
privilege.
Nope,
this
was
part
of
a
well-publicized
presentation.
It
feels
a
lot
like
they’re
trying
to
drum
up
business
for
their
litigators,
and
take
advantage
of
the
conservative
tilt
of
courts
these
days.
The
federal
precedent
on
captive
audience
meetings
is
murky
at
best.
At
the
federal
level,
the
Biden-era
National
Labor
Relations
Board banned
mandatory
attendance at
captive
audience
meetings
in
a case
involving
Amazon last
November.
Employers
can
still
hold
these
meetings,
the
NLRB
said,
but
they
cannot
take
attendance
and
cannot
discipline
anyone
for
failing
to
attend.
While
President
Trump’s
acting
NLRB
general
counsel
issued
a
memo
in
February
rescinding
a
Biden-era
policy
statement
on
captive
audience
meetings, that
did
not
turn
over
the
Amazon
decision,
which
remains
operative.
And
there’s
not
currently
a
quorum
at
the
NLBR,
further
delaying
clarity
on
the
issue
and
the
Amazon
case
is
on
appeal
to
the
11th
Circuit.
But
the
Littler
attorneys
seems
quite
confident
about
a
challenge
to
the
RI
law.
“Note
that
mandatory
meetings
have
tremendous
value,”
Tumolo
reportedly
said
on
the
webinar.
“Historically
these
meetings
have
been
found
to
be
lawful…
we’ve
talked
about
the
serious
constitutional
problems
that
these
laws
have.”
Both
Tumolo
and
Folger-Hartwell
acknowledged
that
it
would
be
time-consuming
and
expensive
to
challenge
the
law,
especially
with
the
current
uncertain
situation
at
the
NLRB.
But
[Patrick
Crowley,
president
of
the
Rhode
Island
AFL-CIO]
believes
that
getting
companies
interested
in
violating
the
law
was
the
point.
“They’re
trying
to
find
a
client
to
make
a
case
at
the
Supreme
Court,”
he
said.
That’s
certainly
one
reason
for
openly
discussing
such
an
audacious
strategy
for
dealing
with
state
law.
Above
the
Law
reached
out
to
Littler
for
comment,
but
did
not
immediately
hear
back.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].