Walmart Files Notice of Removal, Jury Demand in Tackett Case

A lawsuit captioned Tackett v. Walmart, Inc., Wal‑Mart Stores East, LP, and store personnel was removed to federal court (E.D. Ky.) on Jan. 27, 2026 as case no. 6:26‑cv‑00073. The federal docket shows Walmart filed a notice of removal, a memorandum in support, a corporate FRCP 7.1 disclosure and a jury demand on the same day.

The Eastern District of Kentucky docket lists the case number in a year-format variant as 6:2026cv00073 and identifies the presiding judge only by the surname Gregory. Beyond those filings, the publicly available summaries do not include the state-court complaint text or details of the plaintiff’s allegations, plaintiff counsel or the state court from which the case was removed.

The filings Walmart submitted on Jan. 27 formally shift the procedural forum from state court to federal court and include a demand for a jury trial, a move that can alter litigation strategy and timing. Removal typically signals that a defendant intends to litigate in federal court, where different procedural rules and scheduling pressures apply. For workers named or referred to in the suit as "store personnel," federal discovery and depositions could draw store employees into testimony or document production sooner than in a state-court timetable.

Because the removal papers themselves generally attach the removed complaint, the next relevant docket entries to watch are the state-court complaint and any early motions - including a motion to remand by the plaintiff or a motion to dismiss by the defendants. Those documents will reveal whether Walmart asserted federal-question jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, or another basis for removal, and they will specify the substantive claims and damages sought. At present, the federal docket entries are limited to procedural filings and do not identify the factual basis for Tackett’s suit.

This filing arrives against a backdrop of substantial litigation involving Walmart in multiple forums, including separate cases that have raised constitutional and administrative-law questions about adjudication by administrative law judges and multi-state labor claims. Those matters are distinct from Tackett unless the removal filings in Kentucky link them directly to this case.

For Walmart employees and workplace advocates, the immediate practical impact is procedural: personnel identified in the complaint may be contacted for witness statements or subpoenas, and store operations could be affected if litigation requires document collection across locations. Watch the Eastern District of Kentucky docket for the attached state complaint, counsel of record and any early motions or scheduling orders. What comes next will determine whether this is an isolated dispute or another piece of the broader litigation landscape that influences company policies and workplace practices.