A cancer scare, a lost promotion, then a sudden exit - a new lawsuit lays out the sequence
A former manager is suing Nike, claiming the company passed her over for a promotion and then fired her after she complained.
According to a complaint filed August 8, 2026 in the US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, the woman worked as an area manager at Nike's distribution center in Memphis from January 2019 until she was terminated on or around August 1, 2023. The filing says she earned more than $91,000 a year after a 2023 raise, had received a raise every year, and had no written discipline on her record until June 2023.
The complaint describes a difficult period in 2023. It says the manager told several supervisors she needed medical leave that spring because breast lumps "presented a high risk of cancer," and that she was later scheduled for a double mastectomy in November 2023. She also had a long-standing diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression, according to the filing, and had used Nike's employee assistance program.
The dispute centers on a promotion. On or about June 6, 2023, the complaint says, she was passed over for an operations manager role "in favor of a less qualified and less experienced male." According to the filing, she complained to her superiors, telling them "this guy is less experienced than me."
The complaint alleges the situation then escalated. It says that at a June 30, 2023 team meeting, a senior manager "openly berated her before a group of co-workers in a hostile and demeaning manner," prompting her to ask "why are you so angry?" She had an anxiety attack, told a manager, and left work with permission, the filing says. The complaint states that "at no time did Ms. Springfield make a threatening comment."
Within days, according to the filing, a Nike HR manager was told she had allegedly made "a potentially threatening comment," and a company investigator informed her she was under investigation for "making a threatening statement" about the senior manager. She was suspended, never re-interviewed, and later fired, the complaint says. It alleges the termination letter cited reasons different from those a manager had given her verbally.
The complaint leans on comparisons. It alleges that two other employees engaged in more overt conduct - one who "curse[d] loudly" at a superior before clocking out, and another who "threw his cell phone in the direction of his manager" - and that, on information and belief, neither faced discipline. The manager contends she was treated more harshly because of her sex and in retaliation for her complaints.
She brings claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act - for failure to accommodate, interference, and retaliation - and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for sex discrimination and retaliation. She filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission beginning in November 2023 and received a right-to-sue notice in May 2026, according to the filing.
For HR professionals, the case pulls several familiar pressure points into one file. When an employee discloses a serious medical condition or a disability, the law generally expects an employer to engage in an interactive process - a good-faith conversation about accommodations - and to document it. When behavior leads to discipline, consistency across employees matters, because uneven treatment of comparable conduct is exactly what discrimination and retaliation claims are built on. And when a promotion decision is later questioned, a clear, contemporaneous record of why one candidate was chosen over another can be the difference between a defensible call and a costly one.
One allegation stands out as a practical warning: the claim that the termination letter gave different reasons than those stated out loud. Shifting rationales are the kind of detail plaintiffs' lawyers look for. The takeaway for HR is a durable one - the reason given for an adverse action should be consistent, documented, and able to hold up to scrutiny long after the fact.
The allegations have not been tested in court, and no judge has ruled on any of the claims.
