Ex-General Mills employee sues after being fired for complaints about their BHM office flyers.

get these nets

Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
56,458
Reputation
15,630
Daps
208,915
Reppin
Above the fray.

Ex-General Mills employee alleges retaliation after he objected to ‘fun facts’ Black history flyers​


July 1, 2025
UVLTGIUXRZA6VIMTGKV2V3GA7I.png
UVLTGIUXRZA6VIMTGKV2V3GA7I.png

An image from L. Lee Tyus Jr.'s' lawsuit of a flyer displayed at General Mills referencing the 1921 Tulsa race massacre as part of "Fun Facts About Black History." (Storms Dworak Law Firm)



A Black former General Mills employee is suing the company for discrimination and retaliation, alleging he was fired after objecting to Black History Month flyers that referred to racist atrocities as “fun facts.”
According to the lawsuit filed in Hennepin County District Court, L. Lee Tyus Jr., who worked at a General Mills facility in St. Paul for more than five years, said he raised concerns in February after the company posted flyers in the employee breakroom as part of its Black History Month recognition. The flyers, decorated in red, black and green — colors associated with the Pan-African flag — included brief descriptions of historic injustices, such as the 1921 Tulsa race massacre (also known as the Black Wall Street massacre) and the Black codes that preceded Jim Crow.
They were titled: “Fun Facts About Black History,” according to photos included in Tyus’ complaint.
T5SQTKEFOJHFLCLWAO3EPNMKYI.png

T5SQTKEFOJHFLCLWAO3EPNMKYI.png

An image of another flyer contained in the lawsuit shows the Black codes that preceded Jim Crow as "Fun Facts About Black History." (Storms Dworak Law Firm)


Tyus found the phrasing offensive, according to the lawsuit, and asked the plant’s human resources manager whether similar language would be used to describe atrocities involving white Americans. The HR manager allegedly responded: “No, it would just be labeled ‘American Tragedies.’”
Days later, Tyus said he raised the issue with the plant manager and his team lead, “explaining that the situation caused him to use his paid time off and exert time and energy to deal with General Mills’ response, stating: ‘Much like the massacre[,] I wish this didn’t happen and I could put energy into something actually ‘Fun’ or doing the work as I have for years before now.’”
When told no apology would be issued, he filed a formal complaint through the company’s internal ethics platform. He was placed on leave the same day and instructed to submit medical documentation if he wished to return.
“After learning he was being placed on an involuntary leave, Tyus Jr. responded that he was ‘being retaliated against for my beliefs and aren’t being allowed back to work which feels again like an injustice,’” the lawsuit said.
When his leave ended, Tyus found his building access deactivated, the complaint says. Soon after, General Mills’ senior employee relations lead contacted him to discuss the allegations. She encouraged him to share her contact information with others who might also have been offended by the flyers.

With his supervisor’s approval, Tyus printed flyers listing the employee relations lead’s contact information and placed them on the same breakroom tables where the original posters had appeared.
On March 19, General Mills had Tyus escorted from the building and terminated his employment, citing “multiple violations of General Mills’ standards of conduct and policies,” according to the complaint.
“General Mills has a national brand and a deep Minnesota footprint,” Tyus’ attorney, Naomi Martin, wrote in a statement. “That kind of presence comes with responsibility and a company of this size should be modeling what it means to support employees who speak up — not firing them.”
A spokesperson from General Mills wrote that while it cannot comment on pending litigation, “General Mills does not tolerate discrimination or retaliation.”
Tyus is seeking at least $50,000 in damages for each of three counts named in the complaint
 

Address_Unknown

Jesus Loves you...Your Cat doesn't. {#Dogset}
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
16,097
Reputation
12,212
Daps
78,716
Related.
Look at this bullshyt:



af_wwlYr2PX52rNiPA65kooZoo-9SK9BpiJh-McqVVk.jpg

Heard about this shyt a while back from an Disney park worker who around for the early 2000's planning sector when they were looking to introduce either the dueling dragons or the Harry potter shyt and they was about to condemn a few of the older rides to make way. She got into the whole planning aspect of rides, how long they last, the logistics behind when to pull 'em and bring new ones and she talked about the "earlier" days and this shyt came up. Black and red face paint, kinky hair braiding, cotton picking and 'Watermelons a plenty', was on deck for this shyt, harkening back to the "Picnic" era you see on them stamps.
:francis:
 

Squirrel from Meteor Man

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
28,093
Reputation
3,847
Daps
125,566
Should’ve gathered as much evidence as he could and then went directly to HR or a labor attorney. Including his manager and taking time off alluding to some type of mental break were mistakes that allowed the company to get him out the door.
 

get these nets

Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
56,458
Reputation
15,630
Daps
208,915
Reppin
Above the fray.
Rollie,

Thanks for the info.
Had never heard of either story.
That 1895 theme park story is some wild shyt to hear.
Disney was definitely on some bullshyt in 1992. Theme park in the former capital of the confederacy, located near the site of two the confed's biggest military victories? "perfect" location to peddle that Gone With the Wind romanticized version of chattel slavery.


Beyond development of the land itself, there were other, more philosophical, concerns. Disney America’s deviation from the company’s fantasy formula worried historians who questioned the park’s ability to accurately portray historical events. The company’s emphasis on creating an entertaining family experience while simultaneously presenting painful subjects increased fears over the dangers of simplifying history.

President of the National Trust of Historic Preservation, Richard Moe, expressed his concerns in the Washington Post asking readers to question, “what will ‘Disney's America’ mean for the teaching of American history? How authentically will Disney portray the awfulness of slavery or the brutality of the Indian wars?”[15] Those with insider access to Disney’s plans noticed that creators paid close attention to the park’s aesthetics, working out the smallest visual details including the buttons on soldiers' uniforms, but ultimately lacked nuance and sensitivity when they approached heavier historical subjects. Historian Cathleen Magennis Wyatt commented in the New York Times that “they had not addressed slavery at all...the park looked extraordinarily Anglo-Saxon.”[16] At the same time, some worried that Disney’s America would pull visitors away from “authentic” history sites, including the Manassas Battlefield and Mount Vernon, which would struggle to compete with the lights, animation, and technology that made Disney…well, Disney.[17]

A group of preservationists and historians including Shelby Foote, Barbara Fields, and Ken Burns formed Protect Historic America to organize and push back against the new park. Foote turned down an opportunity to consult as a historian with Disney arguing publicly that he could not participate in the creation of artificial history as “Disney’s specialty is to sentimentalize everything it touches.”[18] The simplification and romanticization of American history threatened to distort understandings of the Civil War and slavery in a way that Ken Burns described as “sanitizing and making ‘enjoyable’ a hugely tragic moment of our past.”[19]

There were some academics who suggested that Disney’s America could popularize history in a way that engaged people who would otherwise have no interest in learning about America’s past. Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University, worked for Disney as a project consultant and stated in an interview that, "I am not opposed to the presentation of history in a popular manner as long as it's good history.”[20] The idea that there was only one right way to present history was argued to be elitist and inaccessible. Reporter David Stout of the New York Times responded to the alternate perspective by asking,

“At what point does the effort to make history accessible make it something other than history?”[21]
 

Don De Dieu

Standing in the sun getting black as I want
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
527
Reputation
270
Daps
1,770
Reppin
Milwaukee
Not being far removed from working with white Minnesotans for a few years, they’re easily some of the most passive aggressive racist people I’ve ever dealt with in my life.

If you ever find yourself in a spot like this or otherwise dealing with discriminatory behavior, document everything and lawyer the fukk up. I did and don’t regret it.
 
Top