Is the display of BLM insignia (an acronym for Black Lives Matter) merely a matter of dress code policies, or does it constitute protected activity? Well, according to a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) – it depends.
 
An employee in a non-union workplace reported to their employer that they had supposedly endured months of racial discrimination. In response, the employee and several co-workers (without consensus) began wearing BLM initials on their aprons. During a meeting with management to discuss prior racially motivated incidents, management questioned the presence of BLM initials on the employee’s apron.
 
The employee was informed that the BLM initials violated the company’s dress code as it constituted a political message. Management expressed concerns that allowing BLM initials would invite other political messaging, like wearing swastikas and that “All Lives Matter” was preferable to “Black Lives Matter.” The employee was instructed not to return to work until the initials were removed. Subsequently, the employee tendered their resignation.

The NLRB recently ruled that prohibition of BLM insignia was unlawful conduct by the employer. The Board reasoned that at the time the employee was asked to remove the BLM display, it was a logical outgrowth of prior group activity in response to that employee’s and other employees’ complaints about recurring race discrimination in the workplace. Accordingly, the employee’s refusal to remove the BLM insignia was protected concerted activity as such activity was for their mutual aid or protection concerning the terms and conditions of their employment.

The Board further found that no special circumstances existed to justify the company’s decision to prohibit employees from wearing BLM insignia.
 
The Board did not extend its holding (at least not yet) to adopt the position that the display of BLM in the workplace is automatically protected. Thus, for now, whether BLM is a dress code violation or protected activity depends on the facts specific to each circumstance.

Is the display of BLM insignia (an acronym for Black Lives Matter) merely a matter of dress code policies, or does it constitute protected activity? Well, according to a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) – it depends.
 
An employee in a non-union workplace reported to their employer that they had supposedly endured months of racial discrimination. In response, the employee and several co-workers (without consensus) began wearing BLM initials on their aprons. During a meeting with management to discuss prior racially motivated incidents, management questioned the presence of BLM initials on the employee’s apron.
 
The employee was informed that the BLM initials violated the company’s dress code as it constituted a political message. Management expressed concerns that allowing BLM initials would invite other political messaging, like wearing swastikas and that “All Lives Matter” was preferable to “Black Lives Matter.” The employee was instructed not to return to work until the initials were removed. Subsequently, the employee tendered their resignation.

The NLRB recently ruled that prohibition of BLM insignia was unlawful conduct by the employer. The Board reasoned that at the time the employee was asked to remove the BLM display, it was a logical outgrowth of prior group activity in response to that employee’s and other employees’ complaints about recurring race discrimination in the workplace. Accordingly, the employee’s refusal to remove the BLM insignia was protected concerted activity as such activity was for their mutual aid or protection concerning the terms and conditions of their employment.

The Board further found that no special circumstances existed to justify the company’s decision to prohibit employees from wearing BLM insignia.
 
The Board did not extend its holding (at least not yet) to adopt the position that the display of BLM in the workplace is automatically protected. Thus, for now, whether BLM is a dress code violation or protected activity depends on the facts specific to each circumstance.

Is the display of BLM insignia (an acronym for Black Lives Matter) merely a matter of dress code policies, or does it constitute protected activity? Well, according to a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) – it depends.
 
An employee in a non-union workplace reported to their employer that they had supposedly endured months of racial discrimination. In response, the employee and several co-workers (without consensus) began wearing BLM initials on their aprons. During a meeting with management to discuss prior racially motivated incidents, management questioned the presence of BLM initials on the employee’s apron.
 
The employee was informed that the BLM initials violated the company’s dress code as it constituted a political message. Management expressed concerns that allowing BLM initials would invite other political messaging, like wearing swastikas and that “All Lives Matter” was preferable to “Black Lives Matter.” The employee was instructed not to return to work until the initials were removed. Subsequently, the employee tendered their resignation.

The NLRB recently ruled that prohibition of BLM insignia was unlawful conduct by the employer. The Board reasoned that at the time the employee was asked to remove the BLM display, it was a logical outgrowth of prior group activity in response to that employee’s and other employees’ complaints about recurring race discrimination in the workplace. Accordingly, the employee’s refusal to remove the BLM insignia was protected concerted activity as such activity was for their mutual aid or protection concerning the terms and conditions of their employment.

The Board further found that no special circumstances existed to justify the company’s decision to prohibit employees from wearing BLM insignia.
 
The Board did not extend its holding (at least not yet) to adopt the position that the display of BLM in the workplace is automatically protected. Thus, for now, whether BLM is a dress code violation or protected activity depends on the facts specific to each circumstance.

Is the display of BLM insignia (an acronym for Black Lives Matter) merely a matter of dress code policies, or does it constitute protected activity? Well, according to a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) – it depends.
 
An employee in a non-union workplace reported to their employer that they had supposedly endured months of racial discrimination. In response, the employee and several co-workers (without consensus) began wearing BLM initials on their aprons. During a meeting with management to discuss prior racially motivated incidents, management questioned the presence of BLM initials on the employee’s apron.
 
The employee was informed that the BLM initials violated the company’s dress code as it constituted a political message. Management expressed concerns that allowing BLM initials would invite other political messaging, like wearing swastikas and that “All Lives Matter” was preferable to “Black Lives Matter.” The employee was instructed not to return to work until the initials were removed. Subsequently, the employee tendered their resignation.

The NLRB recently ruled that prohibition of BLM insignia was unlawful conduct by the employer. The Board reasoned that at the time the employee was asked to remove the BLM display, it was a logical outgrowth of prior group activity in response to that employee’s and other employees’ complaints about recurring race discrimination in the workplace. Accordingly, the employee’s refusal to remove the BLM insignia was protected concerted activity as such activity was for their mutual aid or protection concerning the terms and conditions of their employment.

The Board further found that no special circumstances existed to justify the company’s decision to prohibit employees from wearing BLM insignia.
 
The Board did not extend its holding (at least not yet) to adopt the position that the display of BLM in the workplace is automatically protected. Thus, for now, whether BLM is a dress code violation or protected activity depends on the facts specific to each circumstance.

Is the display of BLM insignia (an acronym for Black Lives Matter) merely a matter of dress code policies, or does it constitute protected activity? Well, according to a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) – it depends.
 
An employee in a non-union workplace reported to their employer that they had supposedly endured months of racial discrimination. In response, the employee and several co-workers (without consensus) began wearing BLM initials on their aprons. During a meeting with management to discuss prior racially motivated incidents, management questioned the presence of BLM initials on the employee’s apron.
 
The employee was informed that the BLM initials violated the company’s dress code as it constituted a political message. Management expressed concerns that allowing BLM initials would invite other political messaging, like wearing swastikas and that “All Lives Matter” was preferable to “Black Lives Matter.” The employee was instructed not to return to work until the initials were removed. Subsequently, the employee tendered their resignation.

The NLRB recently ruled that prohibition of BLM insignia was unlawful conduct by the employer. The Board reasoned that at the time the employee was asked to remove the BLM display, it was a logical outgrowth of prior group activity in response to that employee’s and other employees’ complaints about recurring race discrimination in the workplace. Accordingly, the employee’s refusal to remove the BLM insignia was protected concerted activity as such activity was for their mutual aid or protection concerning the terms and conditions of their employment.

The Board further found that no special circumstances existed to justify the company’s decision to prohibit employees from wearing BLM insignia.
 
The Board did not extend its holding (at least not yet) to adopt the position that the display of BLM in the workplace is automatically protected. Thus, for now, whether BLM is a dress code violation or protected activity depends on the facts specific to each circumstance.