Allegations of workplace discrimination and retaliation have led to a civil lawsuit against a major package delivery company, raising questions about employment practices and legal protections for workers. The complaint was filed by Edward Johnson in the 270th District Court of Harris County, Texas on February 16, 2026, naming United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) and unidentified defendants as parties to the suit.
According to court documents, Johnson asserts that he experienced discrimination based on his age and race during his employment with UPS. The claims include a hostile work environment, retaliation for protected activities, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The lawsuit cites Texas common law as well as several federal statutes: Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), Section 1981 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code (Section 1981), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).
The defendant responded by filing a Notice of Removal on March 16, 2026. This action moves the case from state court to federal court under provisions that allow such transfers when federal laws are at issue. In its filing with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, UPS stated that removal is proper because “Plaintiff has alleged violations and causes of action arising under federal law.” The notice explains that district courts have original jurisdiction over cases involving questions arising under federal statutes such as Title VII and ADEA.
UPS further argued that supplemental jurisdiction applies to any remaining state law claims because they are connected to the same facts regarding Johnson’s employment. The company emphasized that venue is appropriate in this district since “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Harris County.
The procedural history detailed in court records shows that Johnson’s petition was served on UPS’s registered agent on February 24, 2026. UPS noted that its request for removal was timely because it was filed within thirty days after service. Attached exhibits include copies of all executed process documents, pleadings asserting causes of action such as petitions or counterclaims, answers to those pleadings, a docket sheet from state court proceedings, an index of filings related to removal, a civil cover sheet for federal court use, and a list identifying all counsel involved in the matter.
In its notice to the court, UPS reserved all defenses available under law: “By filing this Notice of Removal,” reads one section of the document, “UPS does not waive any defenses available to it.” The company also clarified that it does not admit any liability or concede that Johnson is entitled to damages or relief sought in his petition.
Should additional argument or evidence be required by the court regarding removal or jurisdictional issues raised by either party—including if Johnson seeks remand back to state court—UPS stated its intention to provide further support as needed.
Johnson’s lawsuit seeks remedies for alleged violations including but not limited to damages for discrimination based on age and race; compensation related to claims about workplace environment; redress for alleged emotional distress; and relief connected with allegations about hiring practices at UPS.
Legal representation in this matter includes Miranda K. Roberts from Martenson Hasbrouck & Simon LLP serving as attorney-in-charge for UPS. Edward Johnson is represented by John L. Pittman III Attorney at Law APC. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 4:26-cv-02115.
Source: 46cv02115_Edward_Johnson_v_Unitred_Parcel_Complaint_Southern_District_of_Texas.pdf
