A former employee alleges that he was subjected to race and color discrimination, as well as retaliatory termination, after raising concerns about workplace treatment at a Houston-based company. The complaint was filed by Richard Atiba on March 23, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Weatherford US LP.
According to the filing, Atiba began working at Weatherford in April 2023 as a Sales and Operations Planner at the company’s Houston office. He claims that his performance was exemplary throughout his tenure until September 2025 when he was assigned a new manager named Todd Newell. Atiba states that he was the only Black employee in his workgroup after Newell’s arrival and noticed what he describes as a ‘distanced attitude’ from his new supervisor compared to white colleagues Craig Pickett and Eddie Thomas.
The complaint outlines that soon after Newell became his manager, Atiba faced accusations of poor work performance despite having no prior incidents or complaints. Atiba denies these allegations and asserts that similar scrutiny was not applied to his white counterparts. In October 2025, Newell placed Atiba on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), which Atiba claims is often used by employers to create pretextual reasons for termination. Despite meeting or exceeding all performance goals set out in the PIP, Atiba says he continued to face disparate treatment.
On December 1, 2025, Atiba submitted a formal complaint of discrimination to several managers and human resources staff at Weatherford. In this complaint, he reported what he believed to be harassment and unfair treatment by Newell based on race, including exclusion from important discussions and a hostile work environment. He also requested an official review by human resources but alleges that this request was ignored.
Atiba reports that after submitting his complaint, he was approached by HR representative Fran Tibbles who insisted on discussing the matter verbally rather than in writing. Citing concerns about documentation and potential retaliation from colleagues, Atiba requested written communication but says Tibbles refused and accused him of ‘refusing to cooperate.’ Two days later, on December 3, 2025, Atiba was terminated from his position. According to the lawsuit, during the termination meeting he received a letter referencing his discrimination report and stating that ‘Richard’s conduct has not been respectful.’ The filing asserts that this sequence directly links his protected activity—reporting alleged discrimination—to his dismissal.
Following his termination, Atiba filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and received a ‘right to sue’ letter before bringing this case forward. He claims damages including lost pay and benefits (both back pay and front pay), damage to reputation, mental anguish, and loss of opportunity due to what he describes as discriminatory practices carried out with malice or reckless indifference by Weatherford.
The legal arguments presented cite violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—prohibiting employment discrimination based on race or color—and Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code which guarantees equal rights under contracts regardless of race. The suit details several specific allegations: favoring non-Black employees in terms of treatment and promotional opportunities; subjecting only Atiba to intense scrutiny through false performance plans; excluding him from events; accusing him of disrespect after raising concerns; and ultimately terminating him because of his protected activities.
Atiba seeks multiple forms of relief from the court: reinstatement or front pay if reinstatement is not feasible; compensatory damages; punitive or liquidated damages; attorneys’ fees; expert witness fees; costs associated with litigation; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; declaratory relief affirming violations occurred; injunctive relief against future acts of discrimination or retaliation; as well as any further remedies deemed appropriate by the court.
The plaintiff is represented by Joshua A. Verde of The Verde Law Firm PLLC in Houston. The case identification number is 4:26-cv-2299.
Source: 426cv02299_Richard_Atiba_v_Weatherford_Complaint_Southern_District_of_Texas.pdf
