Ben and Jerry’s Sues Parent Company for Firing CEO and Silencing “Social Mission”
Ben & Jerry’s is accusing its parent company Unilever of various contract violations for firing its former CEO Dave Stever. The CEO’s termination is allegedly due to the brand’s outspokenness regarding social political issues.
In a lawsuit filed through the US Southern District Court of New York, Ben & Jerry’s, along with its independent board, are plaintiffs seeking relief from Unilever and Concopco Incorporated. The suit alleges:
“Unilever has repeatedly failed to recognize and respect the Independent Board’s primary responsibility over Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission and Brand Integrity, including threatening Ben & Jerry’s personnel should the company speak out regarding issues that Unilever prefers to censor.”
Ben & Jerry’s is known for embracing progressive political causes throughout its history. In 2018, the brand launched a flavor called “Pecan Resist” in a blatant opposition campaign to then-President Donald Trump.
According to the lawsuit, Unilever conducted a CEO performance review in January. Concern with Stever’s focus on the brand’s self-dubbed “Social Mission” was prominent in the review. The parent company allegedly wanted the Social Mission silenced and coerced personnel to comply with that agenda.
Unilever is a London-based company that has owned Ben and Jerry’s since 2000. It also owns the Dove soap brand, along with Hellman’s Mayonnaise.
The length of time in which Unilever has owned Ben & Jerry’s makes it odd that it would suddenly adopt an approach to silence the ice cream brand’s long-time commitment to social and political issues.
Perhaps the chief claim of the lawsuit is Unilever breaching a settlement with Ben & Jerry’s Independent Board. According to the plaintiffs, the lawsuit “was expressly conditioned on Unilever respecting the Independent Board’s authority over Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission and Brand Integrity.”
Unilever breached the settlement, the suit alleges, through threats, reprisals, and other forms of censorship.
The plaintiffs seek relief from “[a]ctual, direct, indirect, unjust enrichment, incidental, consequential, and nominal damages,” stemming from Stever’s termination. They also seek “relief ordering Defendants to prospectively respect and acknowledge the Ben & Jerry’s Independent Board’s primary responsibility over the brand’s Essential Brand Integrity and Social Mission.”
