An HR complaint, a Slack message with no reply, then a termination the same day
A former Wayfair assistant store manager says the retailer rated her “exceeds expectations,” promoted someone else, then fired her after she complained.
She filed suit in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on August 19, 2026, bringing six counts against Wayfair LLC. Three sit under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which covers race in the making, performance, modification or termination of an employment relationship, and three under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both sets plead “race-based discrimination,” “race-based harassment,” and “retaliation.”
The filing says she worked as an assistant store manager from on or about August 9, 2024 until her termination on or about April 30, 2026, and that her duties included independently running the store. She is African American.
Her account of the promotion begins in or around November 2025, when the store manager at her location was terminated. A district manager told her to keep performing at a high level and said her eligibility for promotion to store manager would be reconsidered in or around March 2026, according to the complaint. During that period, the filing states, she effectively performed store manager duties and independently ran the store - work that built on earlier assignments helping open multiple store locations.
Two incidents from that stretch matter to her case.
In or around January or February 2026, the complaint says, she reported that a Caucasian sales lead had yelled at an employee in front of a customer and was the subject of a customer complaint. No corrective action followed and the sales lead was not disciplined, the filing alleges.
In or around February 2026, she says she truthfully confirmed that a corporate safety representative had touched another employee’s wallet but had not opened it. She tried to de-escalate the situation and reminded employees about the company’s policy on the proper storage of personal belongings, according to the filing. The district manager later criticized her for confirming that the wallet had been touched, the complaint alleges, and she was not told the issue would affect her employment or her promotion opportunity.
March 2026 brought the decision. Wayfair rated her performance as “exceeds expectations” but denied her the store manager promotion and instead offered a one-time $4,000 payment as a “thank you,” the complaint alleges. The position went to a Caucasian woman with no prior retail experience, according to the filing. The company later told her the promotion decision was based in part on the February 2026 wallet incident, the complaint says.
The day after she learned she had been passed over, she submitted a written complaint to Human Resources alleging race discrimination, the filing states, and later joined a follow-up telephone call and an in-person meeting.
What the complaint describes next is the stretch HR readers will recognize. The new store manager became rude and hostile toward her, the filing alleges, and the district manager became dismissive, canceled regularly scheduled one-on-one meetings, removed her from meetings, and disregarded her input and ideas. The discrimination complaint was never resolved, the complaint says. On or about April 24, 2026, she followed up with a human resources representative through Slack about its status and received no response, according to the filing.
A few days later, an employee accused her of using profanity when she asked the employee to stop using her phone. She denied the accusation, the filing says, and had simply stated, “Hey Brit, can you get off your phone?” On or about April 30, 2026, a second human resources representative questioned her about that accusation and other unrelated allegations she denied. She was terminated the same day.
The complaint states she filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on or about May 22, 2026, and received a Notice of Right to Sue on or about July 28, 2026.
She is seeking back pay, interest, front pay, lost employment benefits, punitive damages to the extent authorized by law, declaratory and equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees. She has demanded a jury trial.
The allegations are untested. The complaint sets out one side of the matter, and no court has ruled on any of the claims.
