Campbell Soup Company is facing an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court after a former security analyst alleged he was fired for reporting inappropriate conduct by a senior executive.
The complaint, Garza v. Campbell Soup Company, case number 25-018465-CD, was filed on November 20, 2025, by the Runyan Law Group on behalf of plaintiff Robert Garza. The defendants are Campbell Soup Company and supervisor J.D. Aupperle.
Newsweek contacted attorneys for Campbell Soup Company and Garza for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Monday.
Why It Matters
The lawsuit against Campbell Soup Company raises serious questions about executive accountability, workplace culture, and retaliation inside one of America’s most recognizable brands.
The claims—centered on a secretly recorded tirade in which a senior vice president allegedly mocked the company’s products, its customers, and Indian employees—challenge the credibility of Campbell’s public values and highlight broader concerns about how corporations handle discrimination complaints.
It could shape not only the company’s internal response but also wider conversations about employee protections, corporate transparency, and the consequences of leadership misconduct.
What To Know
The Recording And Alleged Misconduct
According to the lawsuit and interviews Garza gave to local media, the claims stem from a recorded meeting between Garza and Campbell’s Vice President and Chief Information Security Officer Martin Bally. Garza, who began working remotely for the company in September 2024, said he met Bally at a restaurant in late 2024 believing they would be discussing his salary.
Instead, Garza alleges the executive delivered an hourlong tirade criticizing the company’s products, disparaging employees and customers, and making racially offensive remarks about Indian colleagues.
Local 4 News in Detroit broadcast portions of the recording. In it, a speaker identified as Bally is heard saying, “We have s**t for f***king poor people. Who buys our s**t? I don’t buy Campbell’s products barely anymore. It’s not healthy now that I know what the f**‘s in it.”
He also referenced “bioengineered meat,” saying, “I don’t wanna eat a piece of chicken that came from a 3D printer.”
The recording, which lasted longer than an hour and 15 minutes, included what Garza said was a “disgusting” rant alleged to be made by Bally about his coworkers: “F***ing Indians don’t know a f***ing thing,” and “Like they couldn’t think for their f***ing selves,” it said in part.
The recording also allegedly captured Bally admitting he came to work after consuming marijuana edibles.
Garza said the exchange left him feeling “pure disgust.”
The Retaliation Claim
He kept the recording private for several weeks before reporting Bally’s remarks to his direct supervisor, Aupperle, in January 2025.
His attorney, Zachary Runyan, said Garza believed he was acting to protect co-workers who were the subjects of the alleged comments. “He was really sticking up for other people,” Runyan told Local 4.
According to the lawsuit, Garza was terminated on January 30, 2025—roughly 20 days after raising his concerns.
Runyan said Garza had no record of disciplinary action and had not been written up for performance issues.
“He had never had any disciplinary action, they had never written him up for work performance,” Runyan said.
Garza also told reporters that he received no follow-up from Human Resources after submitting his complaint.
He said the termination made finding new employment difficult, ultimately taking 10 months to secure another job.
The lawsuit accuses Campbell Soup Company of maintaining a racially hostile work environment and retaliating against Garza for reporting discriminatory conduct. It asserts claims of employment discrimination and race-based retaliation under Michigan law.
A brief summary of the filing published by Law.com states that Garza contends he was terminated “in retaliation for reporting discrimination based on race.”
Company Response
Campbell Soup Company issued a statement acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations.
“If accurate, the comments in the recording are unacceptable. They do not reflect our values and the culture of our company. We are actively investigating this matter,” the company said.
Garza, meanwhile, has contrasted his experience with the company’s public messaging.
He referenced Campbell’s motto about treating employees “like family,” saying, “That’s not the case.”
The company has not publicly addressed questions about Bally’s employment status, and Local 4 reported that attempts to reach him directly were unsuccessful.
The legal proceedings are ongoing in Wayne County Circuit Court.
While the recording has drawn significant public attention, the case now centers on whether Garza’s termination was an act of retaliation and whether the alleged remarks contributed to a hostile work environment.
The court will determine what, if any, legal consequences follow from the conduct described in the complaint.
What People Are Saying
Robert Garza, talking about his perception of Bally’s conduct and power dynamics, said: “He thinks he’s a C-level executive at a Fortune 500 company and he can do whatever he wants because he’s an executive.”
Zachary Runyan, attorney for Garza, in a summary of the retaliation claim said: “The response to Robert sticking up for other people is he gets fired, which is ridiculous.”
What Happens Next
The case now proceeds through the early phases of litigation, beginning with Campbell Soup Company and supervisor J.D. Aupperle formally responding to the complaint before the court sets a schedule for discovery, hearings, and motions.
Both sides will exchange evidence—including the full recording, HR documents, emails, and personnel files—and key witnesses such as Robert Garza, the executives involved, and HR staff are likely to be deposed.
Campbell’s internal investigation will continue in parallel, and because the allegations involve a senior executive and a potentially damaging recording, settlement discussions are likely to develop as discovery unfolds.
If the case does not resolve, it will move through summary-judgment motions and potentially to a jury trial, where the central questions will be whether Garza was fired in retaliation for reporting discriminatory conduct and whether the recording supports claims of a hostile work environment.
