Walmart Faces Riverside County Suit Alleging Supervisor Harassment, Discrimination, Defamation

Alysianie Laguna filed suit against Wal-mart Associates, Inc. in California Superior Court for Riverside County on March 19, 2026, alleging that supervisor harassment created a hostile work environment severe enough to force her out of her job. The complaint, brought by the law firm Hicks & Hicks, accuses the retail giant of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, retaliation, and defamation.

The filing, captioned Laguna v. Wal-mart Associates Inc., lists Wal-mart Associates, Inc. and Does 1-10 as defendants. Beyond the core harassment and discrimination claims, the complaint includes causes of action for negligent hiring, a theory that places responsibility on the employer for bringing on or retaining a supervisor who allegedly caused harm.

The central allegation is that harassment by a supervisor generated conditions Laguna could no longer reasonably endure, ultimately resulting in her constructive termination. Constructive termination, a legal theory recognized under California law, holds that an employee was effectively forced to quit because the working conditions became intolerable. The inclusion of a defamation claim suggests the complaint goes beyond the physical workplace environment, alleging that damaging false statements were also made. The case remains pending.

The lawsuit arrives as Walmart has faced pressure from federal regulators on similar issues at other locations. In a separate federal matter involving a different corporate entity, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP agreed to pay $415,112 to settle an EEOC sexual harassment and retaliation suit stemming from a Supercenter in Lewisburg, West Virginia. In that case, Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-00623 filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, the EEOC alleged a store manager subjected female employees to egregious sexual harassment including unwelcome touching, requests for sexual acts in exchange for money or favorable work treatment, and crude sexual innuendos. The EEOC charged that Walmart received multiple complaints about that manager and failed to take appropriate action, then fired a female employee in retaliation after she reported particularly egregious conduct and filed a charge of discrimination. That federal matter involved a distinct corporate entity from the defendant named in Laguna's Riverside County complaint and should not be read as the same case.

For associates at California Walmart locations, the negligent hiring claim in the Laguna suit is worth noting. That theory argues that a company bears responsibility when it fails in its obligation to screen, supervise, or remove employees who pose a foreseeable risk of harm to coworkers. It is a claim that, if successful, can push liability up the chain from the individual supervisor to the employer itself.

Walmart has not issued any public response to the Laguna filing. The case is pending in Riverside County Superior Court.