Find out why the court sided with Home Depot and what it means for HR dress code policies
Home Depot’s dress code faced legal heat after an employee refused to remove a “BLM” apron message during a period of workplace and social unrest.
The case, decided by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 6, 2025, centers on a Home Depot store in New Brighton, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis. In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, an employee at the store wrote “BLM” (Black Lives Matter) in black marker on their required orange apron. The employee, who identified as a person of color, said the message was meant to be “approachable” and a symbol of solidarity against prejudice and racism. Other employees also displayed “BLM” on their aprons during a time when concerns about racial discrimination were being raised at the store.
The store experienced several incidents that autumn and winter, including complaints about racially discriminatory conduct by another employee and the vandalism – on two occasions – of a Black History Month display in the breakroom. The employee at the center of the case advocated for a storewide conversation to address these issues and to ensure coworkers of color felt safe. Management responded that its dress code policy prohibits causes or political messages unrelated to workplace matters on employee uniforms. The policy required that any deviation from the dress code be approved by the Regional Human Resources Director.
When the employee was told to remove the “BLM” message, they refused, stating it was the best way to show support for people of color in the store. Management said the message violated the dress code and that allowing it would require permitting other symbols, including a swastika. The employee was told they could not return to work until the message was removed and ultimately resigned the next day. Home Depot later instructed other employees that “BLM” lettering must be removed from aprons.
After the resignation, the employee filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB found that Home Depot violated Sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by interfering with protected concerted activity and constructively discharging the employee. The Board ordered Home Depot to reinstate the employee with back pay and to cease and desist from similar violations.
The Eighth Circuit, however, concluded that Home Depot’s enforcement of its dress code was justified by “special circumstances.” The court cited the store’s proximity to the site of George Floyd’s murder, the period of civil unrest, and protest-related disruptions that included store closures. The court found that Home Depot’s concerns about employee safety, customer relations, and public image were legitimate and outweighed the interference with employee rights in this situation.
The court vacated the NLRB’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The ruling does not give employers blanket permission to ban all political or social messages but clarifies that, in extraordinary circumstances, business justifications such as safety and public image can outweigh employee rights to display certain messages at work.
The Home Depot case underscores the importance of clear, consistently enforced policies and the need to consider context when addressing workplace expression during times of social tension. The case provides a real-world example of the complex decisions HR leaders may face when balancing employee rights with business needs.
