Royal

Retaliation Suit Involving Black Lives Matter Face Masks in the Workplace

February 16, 2023

In the summer of 2020, three employees were terminated from Whole Foods.



The employees alleged unlawful termination for opposing Whole Foods’ discriminatory discipline of employees wearing Black Lives Matter masks at work. The three employees claimed that their termination was in direct violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


In a January 2023 ruling, the Court found that no reasonable jury could conclude that Whole Foods’ reasons for Plaintiffs’ terminations were pretextual and motivated by discriminatory intent.

“… Whole Foods has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason for Plaintiffs’ terminations: specifically, Plaintiffs’ repeated violations of Whole Foods’ dress code and attendance policies.”


To survive summary judgment, Plaintiffs were required to present “. . . enough evidence to raise a jury question as to discriminatory intent.” In doing so, Plaintiffs contended that Whole Foods deviated from the normal termination procedures by involving senior executives, and that their repercussion was much harsher than that given to those similarly situated.


The Court found that the Plaintiffs did not provide the requisite evidence to raise a jury question. Given the state of the COVID-19 pandemic in the summer of 2020, the court inferred that a senior executive’s involvement in this matter was not abnormal due to its relativity to the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, Plaintiffs were not capable of providing any evidence of employees similarly situated to them receiving lesser repercussions. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of Whole Foods.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: