Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

Administrative law Judge Paul Bogas has ruled in favor of Home Depot after the company was accused of interfering with workers' rights by preventing them from wearing Black Lives Matter imagery.

The National Labor Relations Board's general counsel in March 2021 had asserted that Atlanta-based Home Depot violated federal law when it banned employees from wearing Black Lives Matter imagery on their aprons. According to the complaint, the controversy started with a worker wearing a Black Lives Matter logo in August 2020, two months after the murder of George Floyd.

"We don't tolerate workplace harassment of any kind and take all reports of discrimination or harassment extremely seriously," a Home Depot spokesperson told Law.com. "We're pleased with the judge's decision and believe it affirms our value of respect for all people."

A statement issued by NLRB regional director Jennifer Hadsall last August said that issues of racial harassment "directly impact the working conditions of employees."

"The NLRA protects employees' rights to raise these issues with the goal of improving their working conditions. It is this important right we seek to protect in this case," she said in the statement. 

Bogas ruled that the BLM imagery did not possess "an objective, and sufficiently direct, relationship to terms and conditions of employment."

He added that the primary use of the Black Lives Matter message is to address "the unjustified killings of Black individuals by law enforcement and vigilantes."

"To the extent the message is being used for reasons beyond that, it operates as a political umbrella for societal concerns and relates to the workplace only in the sense that workplaces are part of society," Bogas wrote.

In a similar case last year, the NLRB alleged that Whole Foods had violated the law when it banned employees from wearing BLM masks.

Whole Foods issued a "dress code reminder" to managers in June 2020 stating that workers were only permitted to wear name tags and approved promotional buttons, except in the case of legally protected union-related buttons.

But the NLRB argued that the ban violated workers' rights to engage in activities "for their mutual aid and protection."

That case is pending before an administrative law judge.

The NLRB declined Law.com's request for comment.