Uniform Policies: What Employers Need to Know After Home Depot v. NLRB

Employers enforcing uniform policies just got a clearer framework from the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Home Depot U.S.A. v. NLRB. The decision, handed down on November 6, 2025, was a major pushback against the NLRB’s stance on political and social messaging in the workplace. The ruling reinforced that businesses can prioritize safety, brand consistency, and customer experience when regulating employee attire. The court gave employers more latitude to restrict polarizing insignia on required uniforms, especially in customer-facing roles, when backed by documented business justifications.

The Background

The original dispute arose at Home Depot’s New Brighton, Minnesota store. In the months following the murder of George Floyd, employees raised concerns about racial discrimination and the vandalism of a Black History Month display. One employee began wearing “BLM” (Black Lives Matter) letters on his orange work apron during this time. Home Depot’s dress code prohibited political or cause-related messages on uniforms. After the employee refused to remove the BLM insignia, he was barred from returning to work and later resigned.

In its ruling, the NLRB decided Home Depot violated the National Labor Relations Act by enforcing its apron policy and constructively discharging the employee. The board members reasoned that displaying “BLM” was a protected concerted activity because it was a “logical outgrowth” of prior complaints about racial discrimination and workplace conditions.

The NLRB ordered Home Depot to reinstate the employee with back pay and criticized the company for restricting their employees’ rights to engage in protected activity. Home Depot appealed the ruling, and it was heard by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court walked through the unique backdrop of the New Brighton, Minnesota Home Depot store during the period following George Floyd’s death. There had been civil unrest near the store, including looting in the surrounding shopping center, and store closures due to safety concerns. Employees were expressing opposing political viewpoints (e.g., “Thin Blue Line,” “Black Lives Matter”).

Against that context, the court decided that Home Depot reasonably viewed the “BLM” message on a required uniform as a customer-facing risk, an employee-safety issue, and potentially detrimental to their public-image. The court criticized the NLRB for treating this as a normal day in a normal retail environment.

The Result

The court vacated the Board’s ruling and emphasized a core principle: employers do not lose their ability to run safe, predictable, and brand-consistent operations simply because an employee links a message to workplace concerns.

The “special circumstances” doctrine, the long-standing principal that allows employers to restrict employees from wearing insignia or messages under narrow circumstances, received its strongest judicial reinforcement in years.

However, this ruling only applies in the Eighth Circuit (covering Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota). For employers operating in other jurisdictions, the original NLRB ruling in Home Depot still stands.

Takeaways for Private Employers

Context matters. When public safety, customer relations, brand integrity are at issue, employers get more latitude. In light of this ruling, we suggest that private employers take the following steps:

• Revisit uniform and appearance policies to address political, social, or cause-based messaging on required uniforms while allowing neutral alternatives.
• Document business justifications for any restrictions. Courts want to see facts such as customer-facing roles, prior incidents, brand standards, safety risks. When those conditions exist, the special-circumstances exception becomes significantly more defensible.
• Train managers to enforce your policy consistently. Document what is allowed, what is not allowed, and why.
• Prepare for case-by-case analysis. The decision does not give you a blank check, but it confirms you may distinguish between culturally divisive symbols and workplace-appropriate messages when the business case is real.

If you have policy questions or are reviewing close calls, it is important to get the advice of experienced labor counsel. Please contact the author of this article or any member of Woods Rogers Labor & Employment team for guidance.