Laura Daniela Valdes Canon Sues Wal‑mart Associates Inc. in Santa Clara

“Wal‑Mart Associates was hit with an employment discrimination lawsuit on Feb. 17 in California Superior Court for Santa Clara County,” according to the court summary of the filing captioned Canon v. Walmart Associates Inc. The complaint was filed on February 17, 2026, and lists Liberation Law Group as plaintiff counsel and Wal‑mart Associates, Inc., Does 1‑50 + 1 as defendants.

The complaint, filed by Laura Daniela Valdes Canon, is categorized as an employment case asserting sexual harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination claims. “The action, brought by Liberation Law Group on behalf of a former deli department employee, alleges sexual harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination claims against the retailer and a co‑worker,” the docket-style entry states.

The filing includes a stark factual summary: “According to the complaint, the plaintiff endured months of harassment including over 110 unwanted text messages and physical assault, reported the conduct multiple times and was ultimately terminated after filing formal complaints.” Those allegations, as presented in the court summary, say the harassment stretched across months, included more than 110 unsolicited texts and culminated in physical assault according to the complaint text reported in the docket entry.

Docket fields recorded in the Radar summary identify the case caption as “Canon v. Walmart Associates Inc,” list the court as California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, and mark the matter as pending. The case type fields include Employment, Employment Discrimination, Sex and Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment, reflecting the multi‑theory nature of the complaint as summarized.

Several specifics are not present in the publicly available summary: the Radar entry does not include a case number, the specific store location or store number where Canon worked, the identity of any individually named co‑worker beyond the referenced Does, or the complaint’s attached exhibits such as the cited text‑message records. The filing summary also does not contain a statement from Wal‑mart Associates, Inc. in the materials supplied to this report.

The case remains pending in Santa Clara County, and the next reporting steps are to obtain the full complaint and docket from the Santa Clara County Superior Court to verify the detailed timeline, any exhibits showing the alleged 110+ text messages, and the relief sought. How the complaint proceeds will determine whether the suit names individuals by name, what damages Canon seeks, and whether Walmart formally responds in court filings or with a corporate statement.