Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR
Reps. Chávez, E., Anyanonu, Gurrola and
Silva
/Sen. Duhigg
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 1/24/2025
SHORT TITLE Employee Free Speech Act
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 84
ANALYST Gygi
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/
Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
Courts
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Recurring
General
Fund/Other
State Funds
from court fees
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From
Administrative Office of the Court (AOC) General Services Department (GSD) New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG) Higher Education Department (HED) State Personnel Office (SPO) Workforce Solutions Department (WSD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 84
House Bill 84 creates the Employee Free Speech Act, which would protect employees from
coercion and retaliation regarding participation in employer-mandated or endorsed political and
religious activities and provides remedies for violations of the act by employers. The act would
protect employees from “captive audience” speeches but not restrict the employer’s right to
express opinions or invite employees to political or religious meetings during work hours. The
act would:
Apply to individuals and entities, with one or more employee, and specifically includes
“the state or any political subdivision of the state.”
Prohibit employers from retaliating against employees because of an employee’s refusal
to listen to, or attend, meetings featuring employer speech on “political matters.”
Define “political matters” to include not only topics about elections, political parties, and
support for political organizations but also topics related to “legislative proposals,” “rule House Bill 84 – Page 2
or regulation change proposals,” and decisions to join or support “political,” “civic” and
“community” organizations, including fraternal or labor organizations;
Provide exceptions for communications required by law for an employer; necessary for
job performance; part of academic coursework or other academic programming; part of
work performed by certain government, non-profit or church employers; or part of casual
conversation;
Provide for enforcement through a civil suit, in which attorney fees and punitive damages
are available;
Allow an employee to bring action in any court of competent jurisdiction.
This bill does not contain an effective date and, as a result, would go into effect 90 days after the
Legislature adjourns if enacted, or June 20, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
While aggrieved employees may bring civil suits, with attorney fees and punitive damages
available to them, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) does not anticipate any
significant fiscal impact for the judicial branch.
The State Personnel Office (SPO) notes that civil suits brought by state employees would
potentially have a negative but undetermined impact on the individual employer agency. SPO
also notes that HB84 grants attorney fees and costs to successful plaintiffs, potentially causing a
rise in litigation regarding violations of this act, with associated administrative costs.
However, AOC, the General Services Division (GSD), and the Higher Education Department
(HED) note the provisions in HB84 are consistent with current state personnel policies regarding
free speech (for judicial branch, state, and postsecondary employees respectively). Thus, they do
not anticipate additional administrative or operating costs. AOC states most New Mexico public
employers, as well as schools and universities, have enacted policies restricting the direct or
indirect coercion or influence over an employee related to a political party, committee, or
organization, or similar activities.
The Workforce Solutions Department (WSD) has determined it has no role in enforcement of the
act so there would be no additional fiscal impact on the department. However, as noted by the
WSD analysis of the similar House Bill 245 introduced in 2023, this determination assumes that
employees would find remedy directly through the court systems and would not pursue an
administrative claim first with the department’s Labor Relations Division or Human Rights
Board. Increased administrative claims could increase WSD’s administrative burden.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
According to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), as of April 2024, 18 states had
enacted legislation to protect workers from offensive or unwanted political and religious speech
unrelated to job tasks and performance. AOC reports other states have found that such legislation
lowers the risk of employee complaints and simultaneously improves productivity in the
workplace.
The New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG) notes, although corporate speech is protected, this House Bill 84 – Page 3
is distinct from mandating other people listen to this speech, which can constitute harassment. A
major intent of the exceptions in Section 3 of HB84 is to preempt potential constitutional
challenges, particularly from religious institutions and from employers (including governmental
and nonprofit employers, trade associations, and advocacy groups) whose missions and purposes
focus on legislation, policymaking, and regulatory matters. As noted by AOC and NMAG, laws
regulating political speech are often subject to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, and
corporate entities have free-speech rights that may provide another basis on which to challenge
this law (see, e.g., Citizens United v. F.E.C., 558 U.S. 310, 2010).
According to AOC, the Supreme Court’s 1988 ruling in Frisby v. Schultz affirmed that individual
states have the authority to legislate to protect individuals from unwanted speech. Further, this
act would reinforce current federal labor rules prohibiting captive audience meetings. AOC and
NMAG report the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently ruled that captive audience
meetings (particularly anti-union meetings) violate the National Labor Relations Act
(Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136, 2024). Federal law previously allowed
employers to mandate attendance at these meetings and discipline employees who do not attend
the meetings. New NLRB requirements:
• Employers must provide employees reasonable advance notice of the meeting.
• Attendance must be voluntary.
• No attendance records may be kept (to reduce the potential for retaliation).
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
HB84 is similar to the amended version of HB245 introduced in the 2023 legislative session.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
Several agencies comment on the definitions in Section 2. AOC notes there is no definition for
“captive audience” or for “religious matters” (referenced in Section 3’s exceptions):
Typically, captive audience meetings have been defined nationally as employer-
sponsored mandatory meetings that discuss religious or political matters, including union
representation. … A possible definition for “religious matters” may be religious matters
related to (1) religious affiliation and practice and (2) decisions to join or support a
religious organization or association.
AOC also suggests including language in Section 2A relating to religious matters.
NMAG and SPO indicate the broad definition of “political matters” and “matters relating” raise
questions of interpretation and scope.
OTHER SUBSTANT IVE ISSUES
AOC notes the act does not provide a mechanism for employers to inform employees of their
rights or to ensure employers are aware of the act’s provisions. AOC suggests if HB84 is enacted
that mandatory posting be required, similar to other labor law posters provided to employers for
free by WSD.
KG/rl/hg