The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded a 2024 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that found Home Depot violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by prohibiting an employee from wearing a “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) insignia on his apron during working hours.

On February 21, 2024, the NLRB ruled that the employee’s refusal to remove the marking of “BLM” on his apron was protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the NLRA. Home Depot argued that “special circumstances” justified the ban, claiming that the BLM insignia could jeopardize employee safety, exacerbate employee dissension and unreasonably interfere with the company’s established public image. However, the NLRB did not find this reasoning convincing.

On November 6, 2025, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the NLRB. While the Court did not directly address whether displaying BLM or engaging in other types of political speech at work qualifies as protected concerted activity, it unanimously concluded that the NLRB did not adequately consider Home Depot’s “special circumstances.”

Home Depot’s circumstances included (1) the store’s proximity to the site of George Floyd’s death (less than seven miles away), (2) heightened community tensions surrounding the BLM movement, and (3) recent civil unrest that caused Home Depot to temporarily close.

Considering these factors, the Court determined that Home Depot’s enforcement of its uniform policy was reasonable. Home Depot’s uniform policy allowed—and even encouraged—employees to customize their aprons with personalized pins, illustrations and written messages. However, its policy prohibited an employee from “displaying causes or political messages unrelated to workplace matters.” In making its decision, the Court heavily weighed the fact that Home Depot consistently enforced its policy equally against employees with BLM insignia as well as employees with Blue Lives Matter insignia.

The case will now be reconsidered by the NLRB. While this ruling supports the neutral application of workplace uniform policies, it remains uncertain whether wearing such insignia qualifies as concerted activity. Furthermore, since the decision is highly specific to the circumstances of this case, it does not clarify employers’ authority to ban all forms of social or political expressions in the workplace. However, employers are encouraged review their dress code/uniform policies to ensure they are applied uniformly and fairly to all employees.

If you have any questions about this recent ruling or how it may impact your business, please contact a member of the McNees Labor & Employment Group.