Whole Foods' No-Recording Policy Violated Labor Law: US Appeals Court

A Whole Foods Market Group policy that bars employees from recording is unlawful and could create a “chill” for workers to express their rights,…

June 01, 2017 at 02:41 PM

3 minute read


Whole Foods in downtown Miami.

A Whole Foods Market Group policy that bars employees from recording is unlawful and could create a “chill” for workers to express their rights, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a National Labor Relations Board decision that said instructions in the national grocer's handbook violated the National Labor Relations Act, which guarantees workers the right to engage in protected concerted activity, including the discussion of terms and condition of their employment.

The dispute began in 2013, when a branch of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union challenged the grocer's anti-recording rules.

The Whole Foods policy forbid employees from taking audio or video recordings of “conversations, images, phone calls or company meetings” without prior approval because they “inhibit spontaneous and honest dialogue.”

In its decision, the Second Circuit said that despite Whole Foods' stated purpose of its policies “to promote employee communication in the workplace,” the overly broad language could “chill” an employee's exercise of their rights because, as written, these rules could limit activities in which employees are not acting in concert.

“As written, those policies prevent 'employees recording images of employee picketing, documenting unsafe workplace equipment or hazardous working conditions, documenting and publicizing discussions about terms and conditions of employment, or documenting inconsistent application of employer rules' without management approval,” the court said in its decision.

Whole Foods fought to overturn labor law sanctions and previously argued that overturning the policy would be harmful to the workplace. In its Second Circuit brief, Whole Foods, represented by Proskauer Rose, argued the policy was “rooted in Whole Foods' culture of transparency” and will allow employees to feel free to share comments without fear of being recorded.

The Austin, Texas-based grocer argued the board's decision “undermines the positive workplace relations that the policy fosters for Whole Foods' non-unionized employees.” The company noted that the labor board “has long made it unlawful for bargaining parties to insist on recording collective bargaining sessions and grievance meetings.”

A Whole Foods attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The court said not every “no-recording policy” will infringe on employees' rights and it should still be possible to craft a policy that places some limits on recording audio and video in the workplace. “Whole Foods' interests in maintaining such policies can be accommodated simply by their narrowing the policies' scope,” the appeals court wrote.

Erin Mulvaney, based in Washington, covers labor and employment. Contact her at [email protected]. On Twitter: @erinmulvaney

NOT FOR REPRINT

Latest
Trending

Who Got The Work

Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.

Read More

Who Got The Work

Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.

Read More

Who Got The Work

Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.

Read More

Who Got The Work

David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.

Read More

Who Got The Work

Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.

Read More

Law.com Pro

    Resources

    • Leveraging Technology to Improve Employee Engagement and Client Satisfaction

      Brought to you by CARET Legal

      Download Now

    • Yearly Roundup: Strategic Insights for Law Firm Decision Making

      Brought to you by CARET Legal

      Download Now

    • Small Law Firm Playbook: The Expert's Guide to Getting the Most Out of Legal Software

      Brought to you by PracticePanther

      Download Now