Signed NLRB Charge Alleges Concerted-Activity Retaliation at Home Depot in Tempe

A signed unfair‑labor‑practice charge was filed against The Home Depot at the National Labor Relations Board’s Phoenix/Region 28 office on January 30, 2026. The NLRB docket (case no. 28-CA-380250) lists the location as Tempe, AZ and identifies allegations under Section 8(a)(1) for concerted activiti"

Those are the firm facts available about the case: the filing date, the regional office, the docket number and the listed location. Beyond that entry the public record in the supplied materials is truncated and does not name the charging party or describe the alleged conduct, discipline or other employer action that prompted the charge.

Section 8(a)(1) alleges interference with employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights - the statutory protection for concerted activity for mutual aid or protection. The NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel has made clear in recent guidance that a wide range of workplace conversations can qualify as protected concerted activity. The Office of the General Counsel publicly issued on February 27, 2023 an Advice Memorandum confirming the agency’s view that workplace discussions about racism are protected concerted activity under Section 7, and the memo noted that retaliation for such discussions can constitute an unfair labor practice even for non‑union employers. The memorandum also urged employers to train supervisors and HR to recognize protected concerted activity and to adopt non‑retaliatory de‑escalation plans.

The Home Depot filing sits against a backdrop of NLRB regional outcomes that illustrate how Section 8(a)(1) allegations play out. In a separate Hartford matter, "a charge was filed with the Hartford NLRB Regional Office alleging Dawnmarie was unlawfully fired," and the regional investigation led to a Complaint asserting that she was unlawfully discharged for criticizing a supervisor on Facebook and that the employer’s handbook contained provisions that "prohibited employees from making negative comments about the company or supervisors." In another regional example, workers at Morris Shea Inc. told supervisors about exposed electrical cables, feared electrocution, and then "went straight to the regional NLRB office in San Juan to file charges;" the regional director issued a complaint alleging interference with workers’ rights to engage in concerted activity. An Overland Park case shows administrative remedies can follow: after a 2012 production‑line walkout and subsequent dismissals, "An NLRB administrative law judge found that the Employer had unlawfully discharged the employees in retaliation for engaging in concerted protected activity."

Remedies in past settlements and complaints have ranged widely. As one employment‑law blog noted, regions have sought compensation for lost health care, front pay, apology letters, and other relief; those expanded remedies reflect memoranda from NLRB General Counsel Jennifer A. Abruzzo that encouraged regions to seek broader make‑whole measures.

For Home Depot store associates and Tempe employees, the filing signals that alleged retaliation claims are being processed by the agency and that details will be revealed only by the charge file or subsequent regional action. The next practical steps are for NLRB Region 28 to make the charge file and any follow‑up public and for The Home Depot to respond. What happens with docket 28‑CA‑380250, investigation, complaint, settlement or hearing, will determine whether the case results in corrective remedies and will shape how store supervisors and HR handle similar disputes going forward.