Campbell Soup Company faces 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 Companycase 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 JD Aupperle.
News week contacted attorneys for Campbell Soup Company and Garza for comment via email outside of normal business hours on Monday.
Why it matters
The lawsuit against Campbell Soup Company raises serious questions about executive accountability, workplace culture and retaliation within one of America’s most recognizable brands.
The claims — centering on a secretly recorded tirade in which a vice president allegedly mocked the company’s products, its customers and Indian employees — call into question the credibility of Campbell’s public values and highlight broader concerns about how companies handle discrimination complaints.
This could shape not only the company’s internal response, but also broader discussions about employee protections, company transparency and the consequences of executive misconduct.
What you need to know
The recording and the alleged misconduct
According to the lawsuit and interviews Garza gave to local media, the claims come 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, thinking they would discuss his salary.
Instead, Garza alleges, the executive delivered an hour-long tirade criticizing the company’s products, disparaging employees and customers, and making racist remarks toward his Indian colleagues.
Local 4 News in Detroit, portions of the recording were broadcast. In it, a speaker identified as Bally is heard saying, “We got shit for the poor fucking people. Who buys our shit? I hardly buy Campbell’s products anymore. It’s not healthy now that I know what’s in it.”
He also referred to “bioengineered meat,” saying, “I don’t want to eat a piece of chicken from a 3D printer.”
The recording, which lasted more than an hour and 15 minutes, included what Garza called a “disgusting” speech allegedly made by Bally about his colleagues: “The fucking Indians don’t know anything at all” and “Like they can’t think for themselves,” he said in part.
The recording also allegedly captured Bally admitting that he came to work after consuming marijuana edibles.
Garza said the exchange left him with “pure disgust.”
The retaliation claim
He kept the recording private for several weeks before reporting Bally’s remarks to his direct superior, Aupperle, in January 2025.
His attorney, Zachary Runyan, said Garza believed he was acting to protect co-workers who were the subject of the alleged comments. “He really stood up for others,” Runyan said Local 4.
According to the lawsuit, Garza was fired on January 30, 2025, approximately 20 days after he raised his concerns.
Runyan said Garza had no record of disciplinary action and was not written up for performance issues.
“He was never disciplined, they never disciplined him for his job performance,” Runyan said.
Garza also told reporters that he received no action from human resources after filing his complaint.
He said the layoff made it difficult to find a new job, ultimately taking 10 months to find another job.
The lawsuit accuses Campbell Soup Company of maintaining a racist work environment and retaliating against Garza for reporting discriminatory conduct. He asserts claims of race-based employment discrimination and retaliation under Michigan law.
A brief summary of the file published by Droit.com states that Garza claims he was fired “in retaliation for speaking out against race-based discrimination.”
Company response
Campbell Soup Company released a statement acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations.
“If accurate, the comments contained in the recording are unacceptable. They do not reflect our values and company culture. We are actively investigating this matter,” the company said.
Garza, meanwhile, compared his experience with the company’s public messages.
He referenced Campbell’s motto of treating employees “like family,” saying, “It’s not.”
The company has not publicly responded to questions regarding Bally’s employment status, and Local 4 said attempts to reach him directly were unsuccessful.
Legal proceedings are ongoing in Wayne County Circuit Court.
Although the recording attracted public attention, the case now focuses on whether Garza’s firing was an act of retaliation and whether the alleged remarks contributed to a hostile work environment.
The court will determine what legal consequences, if any, will arise from the conduct described in the complaint.
What people say
Robert Garza, speaking 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 RunyanGarza’s lawyer, in a summary of the retaliation request, said: “The response to Robert defending other people is that he gets fired, which is ridiculous.”
What happens next
The case now moves through the early stages of litigation, beginning with the Campbell Soup Company and its supervisor JD Aupperle formally responding to the complaint before the court sets a schedule for discovery, hearings and motions.
The two sides will exchange evidence – including the full recording, HR documents, emails and personnel files – and key witnesses such as Robert Garza, implicated executives and HR staff will likely be impeached.
Campbell’s internal investigation will continue in parallel, and because the allegations involve a senior executive and a potentially damaging recording, settlement discussions will likely grow as discovery unfolds.
If the case is not resolved, it will move through motions for summary judgment and possibly a jury trial, where the central questions will be whether Garza was fired in retaliation for reporting discriminatory conduct and whether the recording supports allegations of a hostile work environment.
