Politics in the workplace

In Professional Roofing's August issue, the article "Politics in the Workplace," discussed why the 2016 U.S. presidential election has the potential to be one of the most controversial and troublesome elections in U.S. history. It also described the broad spectrum of issues employers can anticipate as a result of employees' political speech or activities—ranging from discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims to unfair labor practice charges to decreased employee morale and productivity. The article included five key survival strategies, including developing or updating existing workplace policies and appropriately responding to politics in the workplace issues.

The following supplements the August article with a state-by-state (and District of Columbia) guide of key politics in the workplace laws of which you should be cognizant. Act now, in consultation with legal counsel, to prepare your workplace and develop an action plan for compliance with applicable laws.

Alabama

An employer may not use coercion to influence an employee's vote in an election, and it may not seek to examine an employee's ballot. Examples of coercion include threatening to discharge an employee; reducing an employee's compensation or benefits; punitively changing an employee's schedule or job description; reducing compensation; or other similar actions.

Alaska

Threats to inflict damage, harm or loss to induce another person to vote or refrain from voting in an election is strictly prohibited.

Arizona

Employers may not coerce employees to support or not support a referendum or recall; include in compensation materials any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees; or display any notice within 90 days before an election that directly or indirectly attempts to influence employees to support or not support a particular candidate.

Arkansas

Threats or efforts to intimidate individuals with respect to whether and how they choose to vote are barred.

California

Employers may not prevent employees from participating in the political arena in any capacity; attempt to direct the political activities or affiliations of an employee; or threaten to discharge an employee for engaging or refusing to engage in certain political activity.

Colorado

Employers may not threaten to discharge employees because of their memberships in or connections to a political party; create or enforce a rule or policy to prevent an employee from engaging or participating in politics; or discharge an employee for lawful off-duty activities such as voting in an election or advocating for a particular candidate or political viewpoint (subject to a private cause of action).

Connecticut

Employers may not discipline or discharge employees for exercising their First Amendment rights (subject to a private cause of action). However, exceptions are provided for activity that materially interferes with an employee's bona fide job performance or working relationship with an employer.

Delaware

Employers may not coerce or attempt to coerce any person with respect to his or her voting activity (subject to a private cause of action).

District of Columbia

Employers may not discriminate against employees based on their affiliation with or support for any political party (subject to a private cause of action).

Florida

Employers may not discharge or threaten to discharge employees for their voting activities with respect to any local election. Coercion of an individual with respect to the individual's registration to vote or other voting activity is prohibited.

Georgia

Coercing (indirectly or otherwise) any individual with respect to a recall or intimidating voters through acts reasonably causing a voter to fear for his or her safety is prohibited.

Hawaii

Threatening injury, damage or loss to compel an individual to vote or not vote for a candidate or political party is unlawful.

Idaho

Attempting to directly or indirectly influence voters by using threats is illegal (including employers' threats to discharge employees).

Illinois

The use of threats or intimidation to prevent any person from supporting or opposing an individual's nomination or election for public office is unlawful. Additionally, an employer may not maintain records of an employee's off-duty political activities unless the employee submits hard-copy records to the employer and/or otherwise authorizes the employer's collection of such records. Illinois also forbids employment discrimination or retaliation for use of lawful products such as, arguably, Facebook.

Indiana

Threatening to damage a voter's business or trade to influence how he or she votes is unlawful. Additionally, employers may not include in compensation materials any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees or display in the workplace any notice that threatens to close the business or reduce work and/or compensation should a particular candidate get elected.

Iowa

Threatening or coercing an individual with respect to registering to vote, voting and/or signing a petition is unlawful.

Kansas

Voter intimidation is strictly prohibited.

Kentucky

Employers may not coerce employees with respect to their votes for any political party or candidate for state office; threaten to discharge an employee based on voting activity; disseminate any communication stating employees are expected to vote for a particular candidate; or attempt to bribe or otherwise induce employees to vote a certain way at a state election.

Louisiana

Intimidating individuals with respect to their political party affiliations is unlawful. Additionally, employers may not allow an employee's political contributions to affect his or her compensation or employment. Employers with more than 20 employees also may not prevent employees from engaging or participating in politics (including becoming a candidate); control or direct employees' political activities or affiliations; or threaten to discharge employees if they support or participate in certain political organizations or activities.

Maine

There are no applicable politics in the workplace laws.

Maryland

Influencing a voter's voting activity through intimidation or bribery is forbidden. Additionally, employers may not include in compensation materials any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees or display any notice within 90 days before an election that uses threats to influence employees to support or not support a particular candidate, including threats to close the business or reduce work and/or compensation should a particular candidate get elected.

Massachusetts

Employers may not take adverse employment actions or promise more favorable terms of employment to influence employees with respect to their votes or political contributions.

Michigan

Employers may not discharge or threaten to discharge employees to influence their voting activities or maintain records of an employee's political activities unless such employee submits hard-copy records to the employer and/or otherwise authorizes the employer's collection of such records or the records pertain to activities that occurred during working hours or on the employer's premises and interfered with an employee's job performance.

Minnesota

Employers may not directly or indirectly threaten discharge or financial reprisals to compel an employee to vote for or against a candidate, ballot question or recall petition or as a reprisal for an employee's political contributions or activities. There is an exception for employers that can establish the desired political affiliation or viewpoint is a bona fide occupational qualification.

Mississippi

Employers may not interfere with the political rights of employees (subject to a private cause of action).

Missouri

Employers may not prevent employees from engaging in political activities or discriminate against employees based on their political beliefs (subject to a private cause of action).

Montana

Using threats of harm or damage to coerce individuals in their voting activities is unlawful.

Nebraska

Employers may not attempt to coerce employees in voting or political activities; threaten to discharge employees because of political activities; or close the business as a result of election results.

Nevada

Employers may not enact rules or regulations that bar employees from engaging in politics or serving in public office.

New Hampshire

Voting intimidation is prohibited.

New Jersey

Employers may not threaten employees with injury or loss in connection with their voting activities; punish employees in connection with their voting activities; include in compensation materials any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees; display any notice within 90 days before an election that threatens to reduce compensation or conduct layoffs depending on election results; or mandate employees to participate in employer-sponsored meetings or communications regarding the employer's political stances regarding issues or candidates (such requests are permissible if employees are informed they may refuse to participate without reprisals).

New Mexico

Employers may not coerce employees through direct or indirect threats of discharge or punish employees through discharge because of their political beliefs or voting activities.

New York

Employers may not discriminate against employees because of political activities that take place while off-duty, outside an employer's premises and without the use of employer equipment. An exception is provided for political activities that result in a material conflict of interest with an employer's business interests.

North Carolina

Employers may not directly or indirectly intimidate, discharge or threaten to discharge employees because of their voting activities.

North Dakota

Employers may not discriminate against employees because of their lawful activities (including political activities) taking place while off-duty and outside of an employer's premises. An exception is provided for activities that directly conflict with an employer's essential business interests.

Ohio

Using intimidation or threats to influence a person to support or oppose a petition or initiative is unlawful. Additionally, employers may not, through written threats, attempt to influence employees' political beliefs or voting activities.

Oklahoma

Voting intimidation is prohibited.

Oregon

Using undue influence (including job loss threats) with respect to individuals' voting or political activities and contributions is forbidden.

Pennsylvania

Employers may not threaten employees with harm or loss with respect to their voting activities; include in compensation materials any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees; display any notice within 90 days before an election threatening to reduce compensation; or conduct layoffs depending on election results.

Rhode Island

The use of intimidation for purposes of influencing voting activity at an election is unlawful. Additionally, within 90 days before an election, employers may not include in compensation materials any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees, including threatening to reduce compensation or conduct layoffs depending on election results, or display any notice containing such threats or attempts.

South Carolina

The use of intimidation because of political opinions or activities is unlawful. Employers also are forbidden from discharging employees based on their political opinions or activities.

South Dakota

The use of threats of harm or loss to intimidate individuals in their voting activities is unlawful. Employers also may not include in compensation materials any threats or statements intended to influence the political opinions or actions of employees or, within 90 days before a general election, display any notice containing threats to employees depending on election results, including threats to reduce their compensation or conduct layoffs. Employer corporations proved to be in violation of such laws automatically forfeit their charters.

Tennessee

Employers may not coerce or force employees to vote for a certain candidate or in a certain way; discharge employees for failing to vote for a certain candidate or in a certain way; or display or otherwise distribute any statement intended to coerce employees to vote for a certain candidate or in a certain way.

Texas

Employers may not retaliate against employees for voting a certain way by reducing or threatening to reduce their compensation or benefits.

Utah

The threat or actual infliction of injury or loss to intimidate another person to vote a certain way is forbidden. Additionally, employers may not include in compensation materials any threats or statements intended to influence the political opinions or actions of employees or, within 90 days before a general election, display any notice containing threats to employees depending on election results, including threats to reduce their compensation or conduct layoffs.

Vermont

The use of threats to influence how individuals vote in state elections is prohibited.

Virginia

Political action committees may not use funds obtained through job discrimination, financial reprisals or as a condition of employment. Additionally, the use of threats to influence how individuals vote is prohibited.

Washington

Employers may not interfere with a voter's efforts to support or oppose a recall, referendum or other initiative; discriminate in terms or conditions of employment against employees or officers because of their support or opposition to a particular candidate, political party or political activity; or use payroll contributions or salary increases for the purposes of funding political activities or candidates.

West Virginia

Employers may not threaten to reduce employees' compensation or conduct layoffs depending on election results or otherwise intimidate or use undue influence for purposes of influencing employees' voting activities.

Wisconsin

Employers may not use threats of discharge or compensation reduction or promises of a compensation increase to influence voting rights; discriminate against employees who refuse to participate in employer communications about political matters; or display or otherwise circulate communications containing threats to reduce compensation or conduct layoffs depending on election results.

Wyoming

The use of threats of harm or loss (financially or otherwise) to coerce individuals to exercise their voting rights or political activities is prohibited.

Employers must act now

You must stay informed of the various politics in the workplace laws and take steps to ensure compliance. The tone and rhetoric of this election cycle promise to keep even the most well-meaning employers on their toes as employees raise rarely seen employment issues stemming from often obscure workplace laws.

Gray I. Mateo-Harris is a senior associate in the Chicago office of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart P.C.