She signed the form - then, the suit alleges, the charge on it was crossed out and replaced
A former Texas parole officer says she was fired because she was pregnant - and that her employer changed the charge used to justify it after she had already signed the paperwork.
The worker filed a federal lawsuit on June 29, 2026, against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and several of its officials, alleging she was terminated because of her pregnancy and mental health conditions, retaliated against for complaining, and denied a fair process. The case was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
For HR leaders, it reads less like a single bad decision and more like a sequence of process failures - each one giving a plaintiff something to point at.
The dispute traces to a July 2025 incident involving a state vehicle. The worker says she was a passenger, not the driver. According to the complaint, the driver signed for the vehicle and, under TDCJ's own policy, carried sole responsibility for it. That driver was allowed to resign and was recommended for different charges, the filing says. The passenger was fired.
The charge is where the case gets pointed. The complaint alleges the worker was first disciplined under a "reckless endangerment" code, but that after she signed her determination form, that charge was crossed out and "misuse of TDCJ property" was written in. She says she was never told, never given a chance to respond, and that the form's outcome fields were filled in only after her signature. A required notice for the new charge, she alleges, never came.
The worker says she told HR she was pregnant on or about August 2, 2025, and also disclosed anxiety and depression, asking for accommodations. The complaint alleges TDCJ never started the interactive process - the dialogue the law expects once an employer learns of a disability and a request.
Some of the most pointed material is the language the complaint attributes to people involved. The worker alleges that when she sought union help before her hearing, the representative told her she was "using her pregnancy as an excuse." She also alleges the official running the disciplinary hearing opened by saying "the charges are already determined" and "there's no going back at this point" - which she casts as a sign the outcome was set before she could speak.
The discrimination theory leans on a comparison. The complaint alleges the non-pregnant driver of the same vehicle was allowed to resign, while the pregnant passenger was terminated.
There is also a statute HR teams have been watching closely. The complaint says the EEOC told the worker it could not handle a Pregnant Workers Fairness Act charge against a Texas state agency, citing a court injunction tied to the case now known as Texas v. Bondi. She is holding that claim open pending the result.
The suit alleges sex and pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, failure to accommodate under the PWFA, disability discrimination under the ADA, and a due-process violation under federal civil rights law. The worker filed an EEOC charge and received a right-to-sue notice before going to court. She is representing herself.
The takeaways are familiar, but the case is a clean illustration of them. Under the law, a consistent disciplinary rationale matters - shifting explanations can support an inference of pretext. Notice and a real chance to respond matter, particularly when a charge changes mid-process. The interactive process is expected the moment an employer is on notice of a disability and a request. And comparators - how similarly situated employees are treated - are often among the first things a court examines.
The allegations have not been tested in court, and no court has ruled on any of the claims.
