Black Lives Matter Dispute: New Court Ruling Backs Employer

How far can HR go to regulate employee messages on work uniforms? A new federal appeals court decision on a Black Lives Matter (BLM) controversy provides valuable guidance.

The case began after employees at a Minnesota Home Depot displayed “BLM” on their work aprons, sparking a legal fight over how much control employers have over uniform messaging.

How This Black Lives Matter Conflict Started

Home Depot requires its store-facing employees to wear an orange apron with the store’s insignia. While it encourages staffers to customize the aprons, it also bans “causes or political messages unrelated to the workplace.”

About three months after George Floyd was killed, an employee who now goes by the name of Caro Linda Bo started working as a sales specialist at a Minnesota Home Depot that was less than seven miles away from where the killing took place. Bo joined other employees who wrote “BLM” on their work aprons.

Bo said co-worker Amy Gumm subjected other workers at the store to racial discrimination.  Gumm allegedly told Bo to keep a close eye on a Black customer because he was more likely to steal. She also reportedly refused to help Bo with a rug and turned off Bo’s work computer for no reason.

After a Black History Month display at the store was vandalized, Bo called for a storewide discussion. At a meeting with a store manager and assistant manager, the manager told Bo that the BLM marking on Bo’s apron violated the store’s dress code policy and needed to be removed.

That directive was soon repeated by a district manager, who told Bo to go home and not return to work with “BLM” written on the apron.

BLM Dispute Leads to Resignation

Bo refused to remove the marking and resigned. Home Depot later told other employees that they, too, needed to remove BLM lettering from their work aprons.

Bo filed unfair labor practices charges with the NLRB, alleging a denial of the right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.

Home Depot argued that the BLM messaging was not reasonably or directly related to mutual aid or protection in the workplace. It also leaned on the “special circumstances” doctrine, which allows employers to ban messages that conflict with legitimate business interests.

It said the BLM marking on the aprons could jeopardize employee safety and increase dissension among employees. It further argued that allowing the marking would unreasonably interfere with its public image.

An administrative law judge dismissed the complaint, but the NLRB reversed and found that Bo engaged in protected activity. The board determined the store violated the National Labor Relations Act when it barred Bo from displaying the marking on the work apron. It ordered Home Depot to reinstate Bo, provide back pay and post a remedial notice.

The matter then reached the Eighth Circuit appeals court for further review.

Why Appeals Court Sides With Employer

The appeals court vacated the NLRB’s decision, finding the board did not properly resolve whether Home Depot met its burden to justify its ban on the BLM marking. It also decided that the special circumstances defense to a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA applies.

In so doing, it noted that Home Depot also restricted other politically controversial messages, such as “Blue Lives Matter.” It further pointed out that Home Depot gave Bo the option to select other messages, such as DEI or Black History Month displays. Home Depot enforced its policy consistently, it said.

The appeals court also bluntly stated that “[c]ontext matters.” The activities involving the case did not happen “at a random location” or at a “normal moment in time,” the court explained. The community faced significant tension based on the temporal and geographical proximity to the Floyd killing, and Bo’s insistence on wearing the BLM message threatened employee and customer safety, the court explained.

The case was remanded for further proceedings.

5 Key Takeaways

• This ruling does not justify a blanket, across-the-board ban on employee messaging. Instead, a special exception applied here to block the display of the BLM marking on the apron.
• The NLRA can apply even in nonunionized workplaces. Section 7 of the law protects employees’ rights to self-organize, join or assist labor organizations, bargain collectively, and engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
• Protected concerted activity includes discussing wages, benefits and safety issues.
• This ruling shows the critical importance of applying workplace policies consistently and evenly.
• Manager training on the rights of workers under the NLRA – including non-unionized workers – is essential.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 24-1406 (8th Cir. 11/6/25).