In the recording, Bally allegedly criticized Campbell’s customer base, mocked the nutritional quality of its products and directed slurs at Indian colleagues. Court filings quote Bally describing company offerings as food “only poor people buy” and asserting he avoided Campbell’s items because he now knew “what’s in them.” The executive is also accused of ridiculing Indian employees, labeling them incapable of independent thought and suggesting they contributed little of value to the organization. Garza further contends that Bally admitted during the meeting to arriving at work under the influence of marijuana edibles.
Garza tells the court he left the restaurant “shocked and disgusted.” For several weeks, he did not mention the episode to human resources or senior management, explaining in the complaint that he needed time to decide how to proceed. By January 2025, however, he concluded the comments could not remain secret and notified company officials of the recording’s existence.
The lawsuit states that Garza’s employment status changed soon after he alerted management. He claims he was placed on leave and then terminated, a sequence he views as direct retaliation for reporting misconduct. Garza argues that his dismissal violated state protections for whistleblowers, as well as Campbell’s internal policies that encourage employees to report unethical behavior.
Campbell Soup Company has not publicly responded to the specific allegations cited in Garza’s filing, and no court date has been scheduled. Bally, named individually as a defendant, has likewise not commented on the matter through publicly available channels. Neither the company nor Bally had filed formal answers to the complaint at the time of the lawsuit’s submission.
Workplace retaliation claims are governed by an array of state and federal statutes, including provisions enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that prohibit punishing employees for opposing discriminatory practices. Garza’s suit cites these protections, asserting that his termination followed a protected activity: the disclosure of potentially discriminatory and unethical conduct by a senior executive.
Garza’s legal action requests reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages for emotional distress and punitive damages meant to deter similar conduct within the company. He also seeks legal fees and any additional relief the court deems appropriate.
Court records outline Garza’s career trajectory prior to joining Campbell’s. He held several information-security roles in the automotive sector before accepting the analyst position in 2024. The complaint claims he received positive performance feedback during his brief tenure and that no disciplinary issues arose until after he reported Bally’s remarks.
The lawsuit provides a detailed transcript of the restaurant conversation, redacting certain profanities but maintaining context. Garza’s attorneys argue that the language demonstrates not only discriminatory bias but also a disregard for the company’s reputation and customer base. They contend that public release of the recording could harm Campbell’s brand if the matter is not promptly addressed.
Under Michigan law, whistleblower protection cases typically proceed through an initial discovery phase, during which both sides exchange evidence. The parties may negotiate a settlement, seek mediation or proceed to trial. If the case advances without settlement, a jury could ultimately decide whether Campbell’s actions were retaliatory and, if so, what compensation Garza should receive.
For now, Garza remains unemployed and says he is focused on the litigation. His complaint notes that the incident has made him wary of corporate reporting mechanisms and concerned about possible blacklisting in his field. The court will determine whether his allegations meet the legal threshold for retaliation and if the recorded remarks constitute sufficient grounds for the remedies he seeks.
Crédito da imagem: Campbell Soup Company
