Lawsuit Forces CEO to Assure Consumers That the Chicken in Campbell’s Soup is Real
11/28/25 – – Executives at the Campbell’s Company may be feeling some indigestion this morning. It’s not from too much Thanksgiving turkey. A lawsuit filed against the company last week by a former employee is causing the queasiness and getting unappetizing media coverage around the world.
Robert Garza, who worked at the food company for less than five months as a cybersecurity analyst, claims he was wrongfully terminated after telling his manager about offensive remarks made to him by Martin Bally, an IT department vice president.
According to the lawsuit, Bally in a meeting with Garza disparaged Indian coworkers, said Campbell’s “highly processed” products are made “for poor people,” and shared that he came to work “high from marijuana edibles.”
Speak Into the Mic
Unbeknownst to Bally, Garza was recording their conversation. Because the exchange took place in Michigan, which is a “single consent” state, the recording is legal. Here’s a portion of the tape Gaza’s attorney released to the media:
“I don’t buy f**king Campbell’s products barely anymore. It’s unhealthy. I don’t even know what the f**k’s in it. Even a can of soup, I look at it and bioengineered meat. I don’t want to eat a f**king piece of chicken that came from a 3D printer, do you?”
I think we can agree that this guy is not a candidate for employee of the month.
Garza claims that after alerting his supervisor, who did not encourage him to bring the VP’s rant to HR’s attention, he was “abruptly terminated.” The case is now in Michigan’s Wayne County Circuit Court, where Garza is seeking compensation from Campbell’s for emotional, reputational and economic harm, as well as attorney’s fees.
More problematic for Campbell’s: The embarrassing case is now also in the court of public opinion.
A Personnel Problem Goes Public
Headlines like USA Today’s “Lawsuit Claims Campbell’s Exec Mocked ‘Poor People’ Who Buy Its Food,” and an announcement on X by Florida State Attorney General James Uthmeier that, “Florida law bans lab-grown meat; our Consumer Protection division is launching an investigation and will demand answers from Campbell’s,” have to be dampening the company’s holiday spirit – – and making senior management wonder how the hell this manageable personnel issue was handled so poorly.
Here’s Campbell’s initial public response:
“We do not comment on the specifics of personnel matters but can share that Mr. Garza’s employment was terminated for good reason. He was a Campbell’s employee for less than five months. The company learned of the litigation and first heard segments of the audio on Nov. 20, 2025. Neither Mr. Garza nor his lawyer ever shared previously that a recording even existed.”
Translation: We’ve got bad things we’d love to be able to tell you about Mr. Garza, but If we’d known about the recording and Garza’s lawyer had given us an opportunity to make sure its contents would never be heard publicly, we probably would have settled this quietly (cut him a sizable check).
Forced to Defend the Brand
Campbell’s has responded to escalating news and social media attention with assurances that characterizations in the lawsuit were, “completely inaccurate and absurd,” and that, “we use 100% real chicken in our soups,” which comes from “USDA approved U.S. suppliers.”
And after saying that an investigation was underway to determine the authenticity of the recording (with AI, you never know), Campbell’s issued this statement on Wednesday:
“After a review, we believe the voice on the recording is in fact Martin Bally. The comments were vulgar, offensive and false, and we apologize for the hurt they have caused. This behavior does not reflect our values and the culture of our company, and we will not tolerate that kind of language under any circumstances. As of November 25, Mr. Bally is no longer employed by the company.”
Who Is to Blame?
It’s easy to point the finger at Campbell’s PR folks for this self-inflicted reputational crisis. Their response – – including an awkward defense that IT people don’t know anything about the ingredients that go into their food products – – has been far from perfect. But important questions have to be answered to get to the root causes of the unnecessary, brand-damaging escalation:
- Did Bally’s behavior come out of the blue, or had other employees witnessed his “vulgar” rants and failed or were afraid to bring it to anyone’s attention? Does this expose a problem in Campbell’s culture?
- Why didn’t Garza’s supervisor advise him to bring the matter to HR? Are managers adequately trained to handle this type of situation?
- If Garza’s supervisor did take this higher up in the chain of command, how was it determined that termination was the appropriate course of action? And was there any discussion with Bally about his issues?
- Was Garza’s firing and/or his claims about Bally ever discussed with communication staff members who could have assessed the chances of the matter becoming public?
- Is it true that neither Garza nor his attorney ever leveraged the recorded evidence with anyone at the company before filing the lawsuit? It’s very unusual for an attorney, seeking the best outcome for his or her client (a sizable check), not to make the company aware of (threaten) embarrassing recorded evidence that will be made public if an out of court settlement cannot be reached.
Cut the Check
I’m sure Campbell’s CEO Mick Beekhuizen wasn’t happy to have to post a video message on Thanksgiving assuring customers that the company uses real chicken in its soups. But unfortunately, that’s what happens when a manageable personnel issue is allowed to escalate into a reputational storm.
Of course, we don’t know all the facts, and lawsuit filings tell only one side of the story. But my guess is that this legal case will be settled out of court very quickly. Campbell’s will cut Mr. Garza a sizable check and turn its attention to answering product-quality questions posed by concerned customers and Florida’s Consumer Protection division.
Then will come the critical crisis-prevention task of addressing the flawed internal processes and policies that put their brands at risk and ruined everyone’s Thanksgiving.
As I point out several times in The Crisis Preparedness Quotient, most crises simmer before they boil. With this case, that’s a particularly appropriate warning.
Crisis Quotient Blog 