Three days after she went to the EEOC, the write-up landed - then came the 1,000 pounds of water
A Tennessee crew member says Trader Joe's punished her for speaking up - and pushed her out when she would not back down.
Vanessa Kempf filed suit against Trader Joe's on May 15, 2026 in the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging race discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation that ended in her resignation. For HR leaders, the complaint reads as a familiar sequence: protected activity, escalating adverse treatment, an ignored accommodation request, and discipline that landed three days after an EEOC charge.
Kempf, who joined the grocery chain as a crew member in 2023, says her trouble started on February 16, 2025, when a supervisor, Sheila Thacker, allegedly dragged her across the sales floor during business hours. She says she reported the incident on March 3, 2025 to store manager Kailee Rice. After that, according to the filing, her working conditions shifted - heightened scrutiny, closer supervision, and pressure to change her established work practices.
The complaint states Kempf was the only visibly Pacific Islander female employee at her store during the relevant period. Similarly situated white crew members, she alleges, were not subjected to the same restrictions or requirements. She also says she reported a pattern of racially disparate treatment by assistant manager Karen Lugo to Regional Vice President Tre Phanzu on May 13, 2025.
The disability claims run in parallel. Kempf says she had disclosed a neck injury to prior management and disclosed it again on April 28, 2025 to Rice and assistant manager Lauren DeBolt - including numbness in her arms and hands during prolonged downward neck positioning. On May 2, 2025, according to the filing, she emailed a formal request for accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The complaint alleges Trader Joe's never responded and never engaged in the interactive process - the back-and-forth the ADA requires between an employer and an employee with a disability to find workable accommodations. Instead, she says, she was pushed toward more physically demanding duties.
The retaliation timeline tightens after June 30, 2025. On that date, Kempf alleges, Lugo publicly reprimanded and humiliated her in front of a customer and denied an accommodation request tied to a newly disclosed wrist injury. On July 2, 2025, she sent a written report and photographs to Phanzu, according to the complaint. On July 11, 2025, she filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC.
Three days later, on July 14, 2025, the filing alleges, the company issued her a written warning - fourteen days after the underlying incident. The complaint says Trader Joe's generated at least six internal management entries between July 13 and July 22, 2025. On July 28, 2025, Kempf says she received a positive performance review and a wage increase, having attained all available wage increases within her position - which she uses in the filing to argue the adverse actions were not about her work.
The events came to a head on August 18, 2025. According to the complaint, Kempf attended a meeting with Rice and Phanzu where management told her she would keep working alongside the supervisor she had reported. Following that meeting, the filing states, DeBolt assigned her to load and unload nearly 1,000 pounds of bottled water cases despite the company's prior knowledge of her documented wrist injury. An uninjured crew member in direct proximity intervened to prevent bodily harm, the complaint alleges. Kempf resigned the next day.
She also alleges the company opposed her unemployment claim with statements contradicted by sworn testimony at the October 6, 2025 Tennessee Unemployment Insurance Appeals hearing.
The EEOC issued a determination finding reasonable cause to believe violations of Title VII and the ADA had occurred on December 10, 2025, according to the complaint, and a Notice of Right to Sue on February 24, 2026. Kempf is proceeding pro se and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, back pay, front pay, and costs and attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988.
The allegations have not been tested in court. Trader Joe's has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled on the merits.
