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.

December 5, 2025
Our attorneys successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of the Defendant from the Massachusetts Appeals Court in a Wage Act and contract dispute. The Complainant alleged entitlement to a substantial variable compensation award following resignation. We demonstrated that the compensation plan made such awards discretionary and contingent on continued employment at the time of payout. The Appeals Court agreed, finding that the award did not constitute wages under the Wage Act and that the Defendant acted lawfully in denying payment. All claims were dismissed in their entirety.
By The Royal Law Firm November 5, 2025
Attorney Amy Royal has once again been selected as a Super Lawyer ! As published by Super Lawyers Amy B. Royal is a top-rated attorney, with her firm headquartered in Springfield, Massachusetts. Providing legal representation in the New England states and New York, for a variety of different issues, Amy Royal was selected to Super Lawyers for 2014 - 2016, 2019 - 2025. Attorneys like Amy B. Royal are recognized by their peers for their outstanding work and commitment to the spirit of the legal profession. Their knowledge of the law, professional work ethic, and advocacy on behalf of their clients allow them to stand out among other attorneys in the field.