{"id":132405,"date":"2025-09-02T13:29:42","date_gmt":"2025-09-02T21:29:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/09\/02\/biglaw-firms-anti-union-words-for-risk-tolerant-employers-raises-eye-brows\/"},"modified":"2025-09-02T13:29:42","modified_gmt":"2025-09-02T21:29:42","slug":"biglaw-firms-anti-union-words-for-risk-tolerant-employers-raises-eye-brows","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/09\/02\/biglaw-firms-anti-union-words-for-risk-tolerant-employers-raises-eye-brows\/","title":{"rendered":"Biglaw Firm\u2019s Anti-Union Words For \u2018Risk Tolerant\u2019 Employers Raises Eye Brows"},"content":{"rendered":"

Biglaw firm Littler Mendelson has a reputation for being among the top Labor & Employment practices. Indeed, they\u2019ve repeatedly taken top honors in the Vault ranking in the category<\/a>. And that tradition of representing employers was on display during a recent webinar.<\/p>\n

The presentation, Captive No More: What Rhode Island\u2019s New Workplace Speech Law Means for Employers, (CLE credit pending!) was touted <\/a>on the firm\u2019s website and was designed to provide insight on Rhode Island\u2019s ban on \u201cmandatory workplace meetings to discuss political or religious matters, including whether employees should join or support a labor union.\u201d The American Prospect obtained details<\/a> of what was said during the webinar and the attorneys who presented \u2014 Jillian Folger-Hartwell ad Gregory Tumolo \u2014 say the \u201cmandatory employee education meetings\u201d are \u201cone of the most effective ways for employers to communicate with employees freely to correct misperceptions and combat union propaganda.\u201d And made it clear ignoring the law is on the table.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWe are not in the habit of advising you lightly that you should challenge laws,\u201d 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\u00a0Prospect<\/em>\u00a0exclusively obtained. But \u201cif you are a bit more risk tolerant, and you want to continue\u201d to hold the meetings, \u201cthat is a choice that you can make.\u201d<\/p>\n

While acknowledging that this would expose employers to litigation, Folger-Hartwell explained her firm\u2019s view that there are \u201cstrong arguments\u201d that the law is unconstitutional, and that ignoring it would be a \u201cvehicle\u201d for a legal challenge.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sure\u2026 breaking the law is always a \u201cchoice,\u201d but it\u2019s not one Biglaw lawyers are usually this frank about. Remember, this wasn\u2019t 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\u2019re trying to drum up business for their litigators, and take advantage of the conservative tilt of courts <\/a>these days.<\/p>\n

The federal precedent on captive audience meetings is murky at best. <\/p>\n

\n

At the federal level, the Biden-era National Labor Relations Board\u00a0banned mandatory attendance<\/a>\u00a0at captive audience meetings in a\u00a0case involving Amazon<\/a>\u00a0last 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\u2019s acting NLRB general counsel issued a memo in February rescinding a Biden-era policy statement on captive audience meetings,\u00a0that did not turn over the Amazon decision<\/a>, which remains operative.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And there\u2019s not currently a quorum at the NLBR, further delaying clarity on the issue and the Amazon case is on appeal to the 11th Circuit. <\/p>\n

But the Littler attorneys seems quite confident<\/a> about a challenge to the RI law. \u201cNote that mandatory meetings have tremendous value,\u201d Tumolo reportedly said on the webinar. \u201cHistorically these meetings have been found to be lawful\u2026 we\u2019ve talked about the serious constitutional problems that these laws have.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

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. \u201cThey\u2019re trying to find a client to make a case at the Supreme Court,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s certainly one reason for openly discussing such an audacious strategy for dealing with state law.<\/p>\n

Above the Law reached out to Littler for comment, but did not immediately hear back. <\/p>\n

\n

\"\"Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her<\/a> with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Biglaw Firm\u2019s Anti-Union Words For \u2018Risk Tolerant\u2019 Employers Raises Eye Brows<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Biglaw firm Littler Mendelson has a reputation for being among the top Labor & Employment practices. Indeed, they\u2019ve repeatedly taken top honors in the Vault ranking in the category<\/a>. And that tradition of representing employers was on display during a recent webinar.<\/p>\n

The presentation, Captive No More: What Rhode Island\u2019s New Workplace Speech Law Means for Employers, (CLE credit pending!) was touted <\/a>on the firm\u2019s website and was designed to provide insight on Rhode Island\u2019s ban on \u201cmandatory workplace meetings to discuss political or religious matters, including whether employees should join or support a labor union.\u201d The American Prospect obtained details<\/a> of what was said during the webinar and the attorneys who presented \u2014 Jillian Folger-Hartwell ad Gregory Tumolo \u2014 say the \u201cmandatory employee education meetings\u201d are \u201cone of the most effective ways for employers to communicate with employees freely to correct misperceptions and combat union propaganda.\u201d And made it clear ignoring the law is on the table.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWe are not in the habit of advising you lightly that you should challenge laws,\u201d 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\u00a0Prospect<\/em>\u00a0exclusively obtained. But \u201cif you are a bit more risk tolerant, and you want to continue\u201d to hold the meetings, \u201cthat is a choice that you can make.\u201d<\/p>\n

While acknowledging that this would expose employers to litigation, Folger-Hartwell explained her firm\u2019s view that there are \u201cstrong arguments\u201d that the law is unconstitutional, and that ignoring it would be a \u201cvehicle\u201d for a legal challenge.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sure\u2026 breaking the law is always a \u201cchoice,\u201d but it\u2019s not one Biglaw lawyers are usually this frank about. Remember, this wasn\u2019t 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\u2019re trying to drum up business for their litigators, and take advantage of the conservative tilt of courts <\/a>these days.<\/p>\n

The federal precedent on captive audience meetings is murky at best. <\/p>\n

\n

At the federal level, the Biden-era National Labor Relations Board\u00a0banned mandatory attendance<\/a>\u00a0at captive audience meetings in a\u00a0case involving Amazon<\/a>\u00a0last 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\u2019s acting NLRB general counsel issued a memo in February rescinding a Biden-era policy statement on captive audience meetings,\u00a0that did not turn over the Amazon decision<\/a>, which remains operative.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And there\u2019s not currently a quorum at the NLBR, further delaying clarity on the issue and the Amazon case is on appeal to the 11th Circuit. <\/p>\n

But the Littler attorneys seems quite confident<\/a> about a challenge to the RI law. \u201cNote that mandatory meetings have tremendous value,\u201d Tumolo reportedly said on the webinar. \u201cHistorically these meetings have been found to be lawful\u2026 we\u2019ve talked about the serious constitutional problems that these laws have.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

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. \u201cThey\u2019re trying to find a client to make a case at the Supreme Court,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s certainly one reason for openly discussing such an audacious strategy for dealing with state law.<\/p>\n

Above the Law reached out to Littler for comment, but did not immediately hear back. <\/p>\n

\n

\"\"Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her<\/a> with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Mastodon @[email\u00a0protected].<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Biglaw firm Littler Mendelson has a reputation for being among the top Labor & Employment practices. Indeed, they\u2019ve 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\u2019s New Workplace Speech Law Means […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":132406,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132405","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568-PDn9bB.jpg?fit=620%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132405","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132405"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132405\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/132406"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132405"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132405"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132405"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}