A former delivery driver alleges that she was subjected to discrimination based on race and pregnancy, retaliation for reporting workplace issues, and denial of reasonable accommodations during her employment at a major package delivery facility. The complaint was filed by Re’Neekyia Davis in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on March 17, 2026, naming Secure Parcel Delivery Service, LLC (SPDC) and Amazon Logistics, Inc. as defendants.
According to the filing, Davis began working for SPDC in May 2023 as a delivery driver assigned to an Amazon Delivery Station in Houston. She claims that both SPDC and Amazon Logistics exercised joint control over her work assignments, supervision, scheduling, training, and daily operations. The lawsuit asserts that this joint employer relationship makes both companies responsible under federal employment laws.
The complaint outlines several incidents following Davis’s notification to SPDC management of her pregnancy on November 4, 2024. After informing management—while not yet under any medical restrictions—Davis reports she was told she would likely have to take leave due to job requirements involving lifting packages and driving vehicles. Despite providing documentation from an emergency room visit clearing her for work without restrictions starting December 2, 2024, Davis alleges that SPDC refused to accept this documentation unless it came specifically from an OBGYN physician.
Davis further claims that after submitting appropriate medical documentation outlining pregnancy-related restrictions on December 7, 2024, SPDC management declined to engage in an accommodation process. Instead, she was placed on leave without consideration of possible light-duty assignments or other adjustments. Attempts by Davis to report these concerns through channels provided during Amazon Logistics training allegedly led only to a third-party intake center with no guarantee of follow-up.
The lawsuit describes additional adverse actions taken after Davis’s complaints about discrimination. These include accusations of theft related to a prior delivery incident made by both SPDC management and Amazon personnel; increased scrutiny; disciplinary write-ups; schedule manipulation; public reprimands; reduction in hours; isolation from normal work duties; and being required to remain unsupervised in the breakroom for extended periods between January and July 2025.
Davis highlights a comparison with another pregnant employee at the same facility who allegedly received more favorable treatment despite having similar medical restrictions. While Davis was removed from regular duties and denied incentives or bonuses after disclosing her pregnancy, the other employee reportedly continued performing deliveries with adjusted routes accommodating her limitations.
On June 4, 2025—seated unsupervised in the breakroom—Davis went into labor at work. Management only became aware when alerted by another individual present at the facility. The complaint states that this lack of supervision placed both Davis and her child at risk during a medical emergency.
The legal action brings five counts: pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act; race discrimination under Title VII; failure to accommodate under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act; retaliation under federal law; and interference with rights protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). According to court documents: “Defendants’ actions constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of pregnancy… Defendants treated similarly situated employees outside Plaintiff’s protected class more favorably.”
Davis seeks compensatory damages for emotional distress as well as back pay for lost wages and benefits resulting from what she describes as intentional or reckless conduct by both defendants. She also requests compensation for medical expenses related to physical complications suffered during pregnancy while employed at the facility. In addition to economic damages—including lost employment opportunities—the plaintiff asks for punitive damages “to punish Defendants for their reckless and malicious disregard” of federally protected rights.
Re’Neekyia Davis is representing herself in this matter as a pro se plaintiff. The case is identified as civil action number 4:26-cv-2154.
Source: 426cv02154_Reneekyia_Davis_v_Secure_Parcel_Complaint_Southern_District_of_Texas.pdf
