Amazon is the most prominent company to use the high court’s June ruling that a Christian web designer was free to refuse to design sites for gay weddings.

Amazon.com’s Whole Foods Market doesn’t want to be forced to let workers wear “Black Lives Matter” masks and is pointing to the recent US Supreme Court ruling permitting a business owner to refuse services to same-sex couples to get federal regulators to back off.

National Labor Relations Board prosecutors have accused the grocer of stifling worker rights by banning staff from wearing BLM masks or pins on the job. The company countered in a filing that its own rights are being violated if it’s forced to allow BLM slogans to be worn with Whole Foods uniforms.

Amazon is the most prominent company to use the high court’s June ruling that a Christian web designer was free to refuse to design sites for gay weddings, saying the case “provides a clear roadmap” to throw out the NLRB’s complaint.

The dispute is one of several in which labor board officials are considering what counts as legally-protected, work-related communication and activism on the job.

  • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
    276·
    10 months ago

    Either employees should be allowed to wear personal accessories to express themselves, or they should not. How do you define what is and is not political?

    • serial_crusher@lemmy.basedcount.com
      141·
      10 months ago

      Also, this article’s vague, but “no slogans, logos, or advertising except for Whole Foods branding” is Whole Foods’s official dress code. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/whole-foods-black-lives-matter-mask.aspx

      The plaintiffs were told they had to remove their Black Lives Matter face masks because they violated the dress code, but the workers refused and were sent home. After being sent home several times, they were fired for violating the company’s attendance policy.

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        63·
        10 months ago

        The problem with all of these things is always unequal enforcement. For example if the store allowed an employee to wear a thin blue line mask, and fired another employee for a BLM mask

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.comEnglish
              3·
              10 months ago

              So we don’t really know one way or another.

              It’s was a dismissed court case… What are you talking about “we don’t know” court records are a thing. You can get them directly by submitting a FOIA request.

              Or just reading the new articles that spawned from the case.

              https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-dismisses-whole-foods-workers-lawsuit-over-black-lives-matter-masks-2023-01-23/

              “The evidence demonstrates only that Whole Foods did not strenuously enforce the dress code policy until mid-2020, and that when it increased enforcement, it did so uniformly,” Burroughs wrote in a 28-page decision.

              There’s no evidence that it was unfairly applied. And if you have such evidence I’m sure you can submit it to the plaintiff’s lawyers and they’ll set you up with a sweet payday.

              Whole Foods, part of Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O), has long maintained that its adopted its dress code–which also covered visible slogans, logos and ads

              Would ALSO cover “thin blue line” as well btw… Technically it would cover the proper American flag as well…

    • serial_crusher@lemmy.basedcount.com
      82·
      10 months ago

      Agreed, if I ran a grocery store chain I’d just have the employees wear uniforms with no personal expression.

      At the end of the day it’s the business’s right to set whatever policy they want though. If the government decides employees have a constitutionally protected right to wear whatever they want to wear to work, we’re gonna see a lot of crazy bullshit.

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        32·
        10 months ago

        If the government decides employees have a constitutionally protected right to wear whatever they want to wear to work, we’re gonna see a lot of crazy bullshit

        Would it be a bad thing? I think with some sensible exceptions it would be a very good thing to permit free expression as the default.

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      61·
      10 months ago

      Up to the business. If they don’t want political statements or and statement made at work, I can understand it.

      • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
        35·
        10 months ago

        That just means that employers can push their own political agendas and suppress alternatives.

        “Employees may not wear pins of a political nature, such as expressing support for Joe Biden. Wearing a pin expressing support for Donald Trump is acceptable because that is not political.”

        Like I said, it either has to be all or nothing - allow self expression or do not. Allowing self expression only if the company agrees with the expression is essentially compelled speech.