Cal. Labor Code § 1050 states that:
Any person, or agent or officer thereof, who, after having discharged an employee from the service of such person or after an employee has voluntarily left such service, by any misrepresentation prevents or attempts to prevent the former employee from obtaining employment, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Mead v. Bev. Hills Unif. School Dist. (Cal. Super. Ct. June 24, 2026)—a civil case—concluded that this provision extends to individuals acting as agents and can reach online publication, such as material posted on YouTube, under the theory that “members of the public” who view the material “would also include prospective employers.” (Cal. Labor Code § 1054 makes § 1050 violations civilly actionable as well as criminally punishable.)
The underlying fact pattern involved Mark Mead, who served as the district’s director of school safety, alleging that Carey, a journalism teacher, manipulated video footage of Mead to make it appear as though he were choking a student. Mead was terminated and subsequently sued the school district and Carey for defamation and related claims. The court allowed the § 1050 claim to proceed and, in doing so, interpreted § 1050 in a manner that could support criminal punishment in a case like this.
Section 1051 similarly provides that it is a misdemeanor to “permit an agent … or employee to commit a violation of section[] 1050.” California has broadly abolished criminal libel, but this statute remains in effect. It would likely be consistent with the First Amendment if read (as many criminal statutes are) to implicitly require a mental state—such as recklessness or knowledge—regarding the elements, including the “misrepresentation” element.
Arkansas Code Ann. § 11-3-202 likewise provides,
In this state, every person who shall send … any false statement for the purpose of preventing another person from obtaining employment in this state or elsewhere shall, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor.
There may be similar outcomes under other state anti-blacklisting statutes, though I am not certain. Of course, a separate question remains whether prosecutors would pursue charges under the statute; I am not aware of any past criminal prosecutions, though it is conceivable that some actions occur without leaving an easily traceable record.
