Dive Brief:
- A federal jury ruled for Haribo of America on Feb. 26 in a discrimination and retaliation case, agreeing with the company that the plaintiff’s dismissal was a mutually agreed-upon separation rather than a retaliatory act taken in response to her claims.
- The plaintiff in Rezene v. Haribo of America, Inc., a Black woman, alleged multiple discriminatory incidents. In one, a Black co-worker informed her that a White HR director repeatedly used the word “lynched” during meetings with Black associates. The plaintiff asked for a “mutual separation” which Haribo granted via a severance agreement. However, the plaintiff declined the agreement, and the parties failed to resolve the issue.
- All the while, the plaintiff allegedly kept property including a company-owned Mercedes-Benz car, a phone, a laptop and other items. The plaintiff sued, alleging — in addition to other claims — retaliation in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Texas state law. The jury held for Haribo on all claims.
Dive Insight:
The alleged retaliation in Rezene centered on several actions by Haribo, including a demotion; a pay raise that the plaintiff claimed was less than what other non-Black employees received; the company’s move to dissuade employees from making discrimination complaints; and the plaintiff’s termination, which she claimed was involuntary despite her separation request.
Haribo won summary judgment on most of the plaintiff’s claims in a December 2025 decision. The court allowed her race- and sex-based discrimination claims as well as her retaliation claims to continue, however.
This was because her discrimination complaints to Haribo sufficed as protected activity under Title VII. Haribo argued that the company merely granted the plaintiff’s resignation and did not terminate her, but the court disagreed, holding that the separation request was not a voluntary resignation and that the plaintiff had attempted to condition the separation on the receipt of certain benefits.
“Plaintiff’s notice and accompanying email to Haribo thus suggest the presence of motives beyond mere resignation and together present an issue ripe for jury determination,” the court said.
Ultimately, the jury determined that the plaintiff was not terminated by Haribo and therefore suffered no adverse employment action.
Jury victories for employers in discrimination cases may be rare, but they are not unprecedented. For instance, a federal jury held in favor of Levi Strauss in a discrimination lawsuit brought by a former executive who claimed her sex and pregnancy motivated the company to deny her a promotion.
