This story originally appeared on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter.
Introduction to diving:
-
one Federal jury rules in favor of U.S. company Haribo On Feb. 26, the company agreed with the company in a discrimination and retaliation case that the plaintiff’s firing was a consensual separation and not an act of retaliation for her claims.
-
Plaintiff in Rezene v. Haribo of America, Inc.A black woman has alleged multiple incidents of discrimination. In one letter, a black coworker told her that a white human resources director had repeatedly used the word “lynching” during meetings with black coworkers. The plaintiff requested “mutual separation,” which Haribo granted through a severance agreement. But the plaintiffs rejected the agreement and the parties failed to resolve the issue.
-
The plaintiff is said to have been in possession of property including a company-owned Mercedes-Benz car, a mobile phone, a laptop and other items. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging, among other charges, retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Texas law. The jury found in favor of Haribo on all claims.
Diving Insights:
Suspected of retaliation Rezenet Multiple actions surrounding Haribo include demotion; a pay raise the plaintiff claims was less than what other non-Black employees received; the company’s efforts to discourage employees from filing discrimination complaints; and the plaintiff’s claim that the termination was involuntary despite her request for separation.
Haribo won summary judgment on most of the plaintiffs’ claims in a December 2025 ruling. However, the court allowed her to proceed with her racial and gender discrimination claims, as well as the retaliation claims.
This is because the discrimination complaint she filed against Haribo was sufficient to qualify as protected activity under Title VII. Haribo argued that the company only approved the plaintiff’s resignation and did not fire her, but the court disagreed, holding that the request for resignation was not a voluntary resignation and that the plaintiff attempted to condition her resignation on receiving certain benefits.
“Thus, Plaintiff’s notice and accompanying email to Haribo demonstrate a motive beyond resignation and together raise an issue ripe for a jury to decide,” the court said.
Ultimately, the jury found that the plaintiff was not fired from Haribo and therefore not subject to adverse employment action.
It may be rare for an employer to win a jury victory in a discrimination case, but it is not unprecedented. For example, a federal jury In favor of Levi Strauss In a discrimination lawsuit filed by a former executive, she claims her gender and pregnancy prompted the company to deny her a promotion.
