Corporate Accountability Project | EvilCorporations.com
Retaliation
5th Circuit | No. 24-60367 | Feb. 18, 2026
Trader Joe’s Fired a Worker for Demanding COVID Safety. A Federal Court Just Said That Was Illegal.
For two years, Jill Groeschel advocated for her coworkers’ lives during the pandemic. Trader Joe’s responded by building a paper trail, manufacturing a “pattern of behavior,” and firing her weeks after she filed a federal complaint.
● Critical Severity
TL;DR
Jill Groeschel was a ten-year Trader Joe’s crewmember in Houston who spent two years raising COVID-19 safety concerns on behalf of herself and her coworkers. She reported exposure cover-ups, pushed for mask mandates, and organized her colleagues to speak up. Trader Joe’s responded not with better safety policies, but with targeted surveillance, selective documentation, manufactured performance failures, and ultimately, termination. A federal appeals court confirmed in February 2026 what the NLRB found years earlier: the company broke the law. Groeschel was fired because she dared to advocate. That is retaliation, it is illegal, and it cost a dedicated employee her livelihood.
Workers who speak up should be protected, not punished. Demand accountability from corporations that treat safety advocacy as insubordination.
7+
Years Groeschel worked at Trader Joe’s before retaliation began
13
Consecutive positive performance reviews before she raised safety concerns
2
NLRB unfair labor practice charges filed by Groeschel
10
Days between her second NLRB charge and her termination
3
Federal labor law violations confirmed by the 5th Circuit
0
Other employees who raised COVID concerns and faced discipline
⚠️ The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What Trader Joe’s did to Jill Groeschel
| 01 | Trader Joe’s management began selectively logging Groeschel’s COVID-19 safety concerns in the company’s Dayforce system in October 2021, for the first time in her entire employment history, creating a paper trail that had no precedent and served no purpose except to build a disciplinary case against her. | high |
| 02 | Regional Vice President Liz Hancock personally reviewed Groeschel’s employee file without being asked by store management, a departure from standard practice that the court identified as evidence of targeted animus toward Groeschel’s protected advocacy. | high |
| 03 | Trader Joe’s issued Groeschel a written warning in October 2021 based on a “pattern of behavior” that, upon examination, included three entries directly tied to her protected COVID safety advocacy, constituting the majority of the contemporaneous incidents cited. | high |
| 04 | Store Captain David Fuller consistently reported Groeschel’s safety complaints to Hancock by name, while omitting the names of other employees who raised identical concerns, singling her out for scrutiny that no other coworker faced. | high |
| 05 | Groeschel was suspended on March 29, 2022, approximately one month after filing her first NLRB charge, and terminated on April 8, 2022, just ten days after filing her second charge. The timing was not coincidental; the court called it “strong” evidence of unlawful motive. | high |
| 06 | Trader Joe’s conducted a “climate survey” instead of a genuine investigation into the specific allegations made against Groeschel; the survey was structured to avoid pursuing evidence that might exonerate her and to collect complaints that could justify termination, which the NLRB called a “fishing expedition.” | high |
| 07 | Groeschel received her first-ever “Does Not Meet Expectations” performance rating in January 2022, after 13 consecutive positive evaluations spanning 2015 to 2021, all of which followed her escalating COVID safety advocacy and NLRB filings. | high |
Regulatory Failures
How oversight mechanisms were subverted from within
| 01 | Trader Joe’s management concealed a COVID-19 exposure event in June 2020, issuing a Dayforce notification that falsely stated an infected employee’s last store visit was May 27, when he had actually been in the store on June 14, just two days before testing positive. One employee resigned over the lack of transparency. | high |
| 02 | When Groeschel raised the notification discrepancy through proper internal channels, management corrected the record but then used her advocacy against her in subsequent disciplinary proceedings, effectively punishing employees who report safety failures. | high |
| 03 | The climate survey Hancock conducted on March 29 and 30 uncovered reports of interpersonal conflicts, bullying, and racial discrimination from five employees who described inappropriate comments targeting minorities. Hancock pursued none of these allegations, disciplining only one employee to avoid legal exposure, while keeping her focus entirely on Groeschel. | high |
| 04 | Trader Joe’s failed to contact the employee allegedly involved in the pallet jack incident before terminating Groeschel, despite knowing that employee worked at a California Trader Joe’s location and was reachable. The failure to investigate a key allegation before using it as grounds for firing was identified by the court as evidence of bad faith. | medium |
Worker Exploitation
How Trader Joe’s used its power over a frontline worker
| 01 | Groeschel was the only employee among those who raised COVID safety concerns who subsequently received a poor performance evaluation or disciplinary action. Every other coworker who voiced identical concerns faced no consequences whatsoever. | high |
| 02 | Fuller told Groeschel that all employee reviews were being graded more harshly because the company was not issuing merit raises, so the ratings would not affect anyone’s pay. This was false: only 12 of the store’s employees received negative evaluations, a number consistent with prior periods, meaning Groeschel was specifically singled out for a downgrade. | high |
| 03 | When Groeschel asked to leave her shift early due to stomach cramps, management threatened her with an attendance infraction, forcing her to remain at work while physically ill. The company then retroactively logged her distressed response to this situation as a disciplinary infraction after she filed her NLRB charge. | medium |
| 04 | Hancock expressed overt frustration that Groeschel was “trying to turn a positive into a negative” when Groeschel considered circulating a petition to extend pandemic pay to assistant managers. This reaction reveals management viewed worker advocacy for better compensation as a threat rather than a legitimate exercise of labor rights. | medium |
| 05 | Trader Joe’s solicited and accepted complaint letters from a former employee who no longer worked at the company, and who openly admitted her letter was motivated by loyalty to the store manager rather than genuine concern about Groeschel’s conduct. Management used this tainted evidence to justify termination without verification. | high |
Corporate Accountability Failures
What Trader Joe’s refused to face
| 01 | Trader Joe’s argued at every stage of proceedings that it would have disciplined Groeschel regardless of her protected activity, but it could produce only one comparator employee who received a written warning for a single incident, and the court found that employee’s situation was not comparable to Groeschel’s in tone, location, or context. | medium |
| 02 | Despite the NLRB finding clear violations, Trader Joe’s continued its legal challenge through the 5th Circuit, a court not historically favorable to labor claims, forcing Groeschel to spend additional years in litigation to vindicate rights that were never seriously in dispute on the merits. | medium |
| 03 | Trader Joe’s challenged not just the liability finding but also the remedy, attempting to block compensatory damages for the direct financial harms Groeschel suffered as a result of unlawful termination, prioritizing limiting its own exposure over making a wronged worker whole. | medium |
| 04 | The company did not contest that Groeschel’s COVID safety advocacy was legally protected concerted activity, nor that management was fully aware of it. Its only defense was that it would have fired her anyway, a defense the court found unsupported by evidence. | medium |
Public Health and Safety
How Trader Joe’s endangered its frontline workers
| 01 | Trader Joe’s removed plexiglass barriers from checkout counters in July 2021 without advance notice to employees, exposing workers to direct customer contact without warning or preparation, prompting Groeschel and other crewmembers to raise urgent concerns that management dismissed. | high |
| 02 | Management declined Groeschel’s request to post mask policy signage at store entrances in January 2021, leaving frontline workers without clear backing when enforcing health protocols against non-compliant customers, placing the burden and risk on employees rather than creating enforceable store policy. | medium |
| 03 | A former employee of ten years resigned in September 2021 specifically because of COVID-19-related health and safety concerns at Store No. 426, demonstrating that Groeschel’s concerns reflected a genuine and shared workplace crisis, not personal grievance or obstruction as management characterized them. | medium |
🕐 Timeline of Events
2014
Jill Groeschel begins working as a crewmember at Trader Joe’s Store No. 426 in Houston, Texas.
Jan 2015 to Jun 2021
Groeschel earns the company’s highest performance rating on all 13 of her semiannual evaluations, consistently receiving merit-based wage increases.
Jun 16-25, 2020
Groeschel discovers management issued a COVID exposure notification omitting a June 14 store visit by an infected employee. She raises the issue internally; management corrects the record after pressure. Groeschel sends a formal letter to HR documenting the incident and the safety fears of her coworkers.
Sep 2020 to Jan 2021
Groeschel continues to advocate for stronger safety protocols, including uniform mask enforcement and entrance signage. Management declines her requests but does not discipline her.
Jul 2021
Trader Joe’s removes plexiglass barriers without warning. Groeschel leads coworker pushback. Management begins documenting her concerns and reporting them to the regional VP by name, a practice not applied to any other employee raising safety issues.
Oct 12-14, 2021
For the first time in her employment, managers begin logging Groeschel’s COVID safety complaints in Dayforce. Fuller questions whether Trader Joe’s is a “good fit” for her, a statement the court later identifies as evidence of animus toward protected conduct.
Oct 25, 2021
Groeschel receives her first and only written warning, for “acting inappropriately on the sales floor,” based on a pattern that the court finds was manufactured substantially from her protected activity.
Jan 2022
Groeschel receives her first-ever “Does Not Meet Expectations” performance rating, after 13 consecutive top-rated reviews.
Feb 23, 2022
Groeschel files her first unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. She begins asking coworkers to participate in the investigation.
Mar 22-28, 2022
A “flurry” of employee complaints floods VP Hancock’s inbox, including letters from employees who had not worked with Groeschel in two years and a former employee no longer with the company, many of them explicitly motivated by fear that Groeschel’s NLRB charge might harm store Captain Fuller.
Mar 29-30, 2022
Groeschel is suspended with pay. Hancock conducts a two-day “climate survey” that the NLRB calls a fishing expedition. The survey reveals no new misconduct by Groeschel, but uncovers unreported racial discrimination and bullying by other employees that Hancock declines to pursue.
Mar 30, 2022
Groeschel files her second NLRB unfair labor practice charge.
Apr 8, 2022
Trader Joe’s terminates Groeschel’s employment, ten days after her second federal complaint. The climate survey that supposedly justified the decision found no new evidence of wrongdoing.
Sep 2022
NLRB administrative law judge holds a three-day hearing and finds Trader Joe’s violated the National Labor Relations Act by issuing the written warning and retaliating against Groeschel with suspension and termination. The ALJ orders reinstatement and full make-whole relief.
Feb 18, 2026
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denies Trader Joe’s petition for review and grants the NLRB’s cross-petition for enforcement, upholding the finding of illegal retaliation across all three violations.
💬 Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
Management’s open hostility to Groeschel’s advocacy
Corporate Accountability Failures
“Hancock expressed frustration with Groeschel’s advocacy related to the company’s pandemic pay policy, accusing Groeschel of ‘turn[ing] a positive into a negative.'”
💡 Hancock’s own words confirm that management viewed Groeschel’s legitimate labor advocacy not as a safety concern to address, but as disloyalty to punish. This is the definition of animus toward protected conduct.
QUOTE 2
Fuller’s characterization of Groeschel as a fundamentally threatening presence
Worker Exploitation
“Fuller replied that Groeschel ‘might do something like this regardless’ because Groeschel ‘feels that her calling is to stand up and be an advocate for others who she feels are being wronged or slighted.'”
💡 This statement, made by her own store manager to the regional VP, shows that Groeschel’s advocacy itself was the problem in management’s eyes. Her commitment to her coworkers was treated as a personality defect rather than a protected right.
QUOTE 3
The manufactured “pattern of behavior” used to justify the written warning
Core Allegations
“The Board pointed out that the October 2021 incidents represented a ‘significant departure in recording details’ because managers had never before recorded Groeschel’s COVID-19 safety complaints in Dayforce.”
💡 Three of the five contemporaneous disciplinary entries used to justify Groeschel’s written warning were connected to her protected COVID advocacy. The sudden decision to document what management had previously ignored is itself evidence of retaliation.
QUOTE 4
The coworker complaints were a direct response to Groeschel’s NLRB activity, not her conduct
Core Allegations
“Most of these employees had worked with Groeschel for years and never made any similar complaints until she shared that she filed the charge, which they believed could negatively affect Fuller.”
💡 The timing and motivation behind the complaints are unmistakable. Coworkers who had never complained before rushed to protect their manager from the consequences of his own misconduct, not to report Groeschel’s behavior.
QUOTE 5
The climate survey was not a genuine investigation
Regulatory Failures
“The NLRB reasonably found that the climate survey was a ‘fishing expedition’ to uncover misconduct by Groeschel.”
💡 Rather than investigate the specific allegations on their merits, Trader Joe’s designed a process intended to find justification for a decision it had already made. That is not due process; it is retaliation dressed in procedural clothing.
QUOTE 6
The court’s ruling on the timing of the termination
Core Allegations
“Trader Joe’s discharged Groeschel ten days later. The timing of Trader Joe’s disciplinary action strongly supports the Board’s finding of an unlawful motive.”
💡 Ten days between an NLRB charge and termination is not coincidence. The Fifth Circuit, not a court known for siding with labor, called it “strong” evidence of illegal intent.
QUOTE 7
The law does not protect employers who retaliate against “squeaky wheels”
Corporate Accountability Failures
“The Act does not contain a loophole allowing for adverse action against so-called ‘squeaky wheels.'”
💡 The court’s language is blunt and important. Workers who repeatedly raise concerns, who push back when management resists, who refuse to be silenced, are precisely the workers the National Labor Relations Act was designed to protect.
QUOTE 8
Hancock’s selective focus on Groeschel throughout the climate survey
Regulatory Failures
“Although the climate survey uncovered no new allegations of misconduct by Groeschel, Trader Joe’s terminated her employment on April 8, 2022, approximately ten days after the climate survey.”
💡 Management conducted a company-wide survey, found nothing new, and fired her anyway. The survey was never designed to produce evidence; it was designed to provide cover for a decision already made.
💬 Commentary
What exactly did Trader Joe’s do that was illegal?
▼
Trader Joe’s violated the National Labor Relations Act in three distinct ways. First, it issued Groeschel a written warning in retaliation for her COVID safety advocacy, which the law classifies as protected concerted activity undertaken for the mutual benefit of her coworkers. Second, it suspended her after she filed a federal complaint with the NLRB. Third, it fired her ten days after she filed a second federal complaint. All three actions were found to have been motivated, at least in part, by hostility to her protected conduct, which the law calls “animus.” The company could not prove it would have taken the same actions regardless of her advocacy, so its defense failed entirely.
How serious is this case? Is this a real NLRA violation or a technicality?
▼
This is a serious, substantive violation, not a technicality. The Fifth Circuit, one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country and one that regularly rules against labor in NLRB disputes, upheld the Board’s finding without reservation on the underlying violations. Three separate layers of review, an administrative law judge, the full NLRB, and a three-judge federal appeals panel, all reached the same conclusion: Trader Joe’s targeted Groeschel specifically because she refused to stop advocating for her coworkers’ safety. The court’s finding was supported by a documented pattern of selective surveillance, inconsistent discipline, manufactured evidence, and retaliatory timing. This is precisely the type of case the NLRA was designed to address.
Why does it matter that Groeschel was the only worker who faced discipline for raising safety concerns?
▼
It matters enormously. The court explicitly noted that Groeschel was the only employee among those who raised COVID safety concerns to subsequently receive a poor performance review or disciplinary action. There is no record of any other employee’s complaints being communicated to regional or corporate management. This selective treatment is not incidental. It is the fingerprint of retaliation. When a company tolerates the same behavior from everyone else but singles out one employee for punishment, the only meaningful difference between that employee and her peers becomes the protected activity she engaged in. That disparity is what the law exists to address.
Trader Joe’s is known as a progressive company. How did this happen there?
▼
This is one of the most important things this case reveals about corporate America. Brand identity and actual labor practices are frequently two entirely different things. Companies cultivate progressive reputations through marketing, store aesthetics, and carefully managed public-facing culture while maintaining internal management hierarchies that view worker advocacy as a threat to control. Trader Joe’s did not want Groeschel silenced because it opposed COVID safety in the abstract. It wanted her silenced because her persistent advocacy disrupted management authority, required accountability from supervisors, and demonstrated to other workers that they had rights worth asserting. That kind of worker consciousness is threatening to any employer that profits from compliance.
What does the coworker complaint “flood” tell us about how corporations manipulate the workplace?
▼
It tells us a great deal. When Groeschel informed her coworkers that she had filed an NLRB charge, a wave of complaints about her conduct suddenly materialized from colleagues who had never complained before, including people who had not worked with her in two years and a former employee who openly admitted her letter was written out of loyalty to the store manager. The NLRB and the court both recognized what this was: workers who feared that Groeschel’s charge might harm a manager they liked, responding by flooding management with retroactive complaints. This pattern, in which employees are used as instruments of corporate retaliation against coworkers who assert their rights, is a documented and deliberate management tactic. It transfers the apparent source of the retaliation from management to colleagues, creating the illusion that the employer is simply responding to an organic workplace conflict.
What does Trader Joe’s owe Groeschel under the court’s ruling?
▼
The NLRB ordered Trader Joe’s to provide make-whole relief, which includes reinstatement to her former position, removal of all unlawful disciplinary records from her file, back pay for lost earnings, compensation for other direct or foreseeable financial harms caused by the unlawful termination, including job search expenses and interim employment costs. The precise dollar amount will be determined in a future NLRB proceeding. Trader Joe’s attempted to block the compensatory damages component of the remedy, arguing the NLRB lacked authority to award it. The court declined to address this issue, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the company had failed to properly raise the objection before the Board.
What can workers learn from this case?
▼
Document everything, from the moment you begin raising concerns, especially concerns raised on behalf of coworkers as a group. Keep copies of any communications about safety issues, performance reviews, management responses, and disciplinary actions. Know your rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which protects concerted activity for mutual aid or protection regardless of whether you belong to a union. If you face retaliation, file an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB promptly, because the law requires charges to be filed within six months of the retaliatory act. And critically: Groeschel’s case shows that even in the most conservative legal circuits, the law can vindicate workers who document their advocacy carefully and persist through a years-long process. The system is imperfect and slow, but it exists. Use it.
What can I do to prevent this from happening again?
▼
Several things. At the individual level: share this case with coworkers so they understand what protected concerted activity means and what retaliation looks like. Know the NLRB’s complaint process before you need it. Support workers at your own employer who raise safety or labor concerns, because collective support makes retaliation harder to sustain. At the consumer level: corporate behavior responds to economic pressure. When companies like Trader Joe’s face public accountability for union-busting or retaliatory firings, it costs them. Amplify workers’ stories, support labor journalists, and choose where to spend your money with this knowledge. At the political level: the NLRB’s enforcement capacity depends on funding, leadership, and political will. Support candidates and policies that strengthen the Board’s resources, protect whistleblowers, and raise penalties for unfair labor practices. Groeschel won, but she spent four years fighting to prove she deserved to keep her job for advocating for her coworkers’ lives. That should never take four years.
I have another article on corporate misconduct from Trader Joe’s here
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
