Former Target team lead sues for wrongful termination, age and sex discrimination

A former Target team lead, Melanie Watts, filed Melanie Watts v. Target Corporation on Feb. 5, 2026 in San Joaquin County Superior Court, alleging age discrimination, sex/gender discrimination, hostile-work-environment sexual harassment, wrongful termination and retaliation under California law. The complaint was filed this week; the publicly available summary lists the causes of action but does not include a case number, detailed factual allegations, or a damages request.

Watts’ filing adds to a series of separate employment disputes that have involved the retailer in recent years. In federal appellate court, a case known as Grant v. Target Corporation reached the 1st Circuit on June 5, 2017 after an April 2015 incident at a Haverhill, Massachusetts store led to the termination of a former Store Team Leader. Legal commentary on that appeal summarized Target’s workplace status, noting that "Target is an 'at-will' employer, which means that Target or any of its employees may terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all (except for an unlawful reason, such as because of one’s race, age, gender, etc.)." The same analysis said Grant had received Target’s Counseling and Corrective Action policy, which set forth "guidelines for disciplinary or corrective action for team members with performance issues," and that the policy "explicitly stated that it is meant to be a reference tool, it did not create an employment contract, and it did not define the employment relationship." The 1st Circuit concluded the disciplinary policy could not be relied upon as an enforceable employment contract and dismissed Grant’s contract claim.

Another separate matter, Alicia Torres v. Target Corporation, is a class action filed in Sacramento County Superior Court that advances wage-and-hour claims and disability allegations. That complaint alleges multiple labor-law violations, including "Failure to pay minimum wages; Failure to pay overtime wages; Failure to provide legally required meal and rest periods; Failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; Failure to reimburse employees for required expenses; Failure to pay wages when due." Torres also alleges she was fired because of a disability and that Target "subjected her to adverse employment actions, discrimination, and retaliation after she informed the company of her asthma disability." That case appears on the Sacramento docket as Case No. 34-2022-00316991.

For employees, the Watts complaint underscores how discrimination and harassment claims can surface alongside wage, break and disability disputes. The interplay of at-will employment doctrine and internal disciplinary policies can shape remedies and expectations; the 1st Circuit’s Grant decision highlights limits to treating handbook policies as contracts. Target has not provided a statement in the materials reviewed here, and Watts’ complaint text and counsel details were not included in the initial filing summary.

What comes next is confirmation and corroboration: reporters and workers following this matter will want to see the full Watts complaint and any response from Target, monitor the San Joaquin County docket for case numbers and filings, and watch whether Watts’ claims are consolidated with or influenced by other litigation trends at the retailer.