A recent federal lawsuit raises allegations that an employer terminated a long-serving worker due to her age, race, and sex in violation of federal law. The complaint was filed by Carol J. Carrier on March 23, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Harris County, Texas.
According to court documents, Carrier alleges that she was wrongfully terminated from her position as a Hearing Officer with Harris County after decades of service. She claims that her dismissal was motivated by discriminatory factors related to her being a Black woman aged 79 at the time of termination. The complaint states that Carrier filed a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on April 3, 2025 (EEOC No. 460-2025-04066), alleging discrimination based on age, race, and sex. After more than 180 days passed without resolution from the EEOC, she received a Notice of Right to Sue dated January 12, 2026.
Carrier’s employment history with Harris County spans several decades. She first worked for the county from 1987 until 2005 before being rehired as a Substitute Hearing Officer in September 2020 and then as a full-time Hearing Officer in April 2022. The complaint highlights that she received a written positive performance review from her supervisor Judge Cheryl Diggs in October 2024—the only written evaluation during her tenure.
The events leading up to Carrier’s termination began in early January 2025 when she was notified by Diggs and Court Manager Ed Wells that her employment would end due to concerns about bonds she had previously approved. Carrier asserts that these concerns were not raised contemporaneously with the alleged conduct but were cited only at the time of her dismissal. She further states that she provided explanations for any specific bond rulings questioned by supervisory staff and received no corrective or disciplinary action following those explanations.
Carrier alleges that prior to her termination she had never been reprimanded or disciplined and points out that she was replaced by a substantially younger male employee who performed similar duties under comparable conditions. She also notes that within the same week as her own termination in 2025 another Black female Hearing Officer lost her job and another such officer was terminated in 2024. “Including Plaintiff,” the complaint reads, “Defendant terminated at least three Black female Hearing Officers within a relatively short period of time,” which Carrier argues suggests “a pattern of adverse employment actions disproportionately affecting members of Plaintiff’s protected class.”
Carrier maintains an unblemished legal career spanning over fifty years with no grievances or disciplinary reports according to both Kentucky and Texas Bar records. She describes suffering severe emotional distress following what she calls an unjustified end to her career: “Plaintiff experienced severe emotional distress, including anxiety, humiliation, loss of professional identity, and disruption of her retirement plans after decades of continuous service.”
The legal arguments presented are threefold: First is age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), where Carrier claims she was qualified for her position but replaced by someone significantly younger after being terminated without prior discipline or warning. Second is race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; here Carrier contends non-Black employees were treated more favorably under similar circumstances and references multiple terminations among Black female officers as evidence of a pattern or practice by Harris County. Third is sex discrimination under Title VII; Carrier alleges similarly situated male employees were not subject to comparable adverse actions.
The lawsuit seeks judgment against Harris County on all causes of action listed—age discrimination under ADEA as well as race and sex discrimination under Title VII—and requests back pay, front pay, lost benefits, compensatory damages for emotional distress, punitive damages if warranted by trial findings, attorneys’ fees (if applicable), pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest where appropriate. In addition to monetary compensation Carrier asks for injunctive relief including possible reinstatement or other equitable remedies designed to prevent future acts of discrimination.
Carrier represents herself pro se in this matter; no attorney names are listed for either party within this filing. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-02342.
Source: 426cv02342_Carol_J_v_Harris_County_Complaint_Southern_District_of_Texas.pdf
