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.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. 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.