KANSAS CITY — A former Kraft Heinz Foods Company employee has filed a federal lawsuit alleging she was fired because she is a woman after the company accused her of violating a workplace safety rule she says she had never been trained on or told about.
Misty Duncan filed the lawsuit Sept. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The complaint, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, names Kraft Heinz Foods Company as the defendant.
According to the complaint, Duncan worked for Kraft Heinz from August 2019 until April 2026. She alleges the company suspended her employment on or about April 16 and terminated her on or about April 20.
The company reportedly told Duncan that her termination was based on a violation of a safety rule. Duncan disputes that explanation, alleging she had not been trained on the rule and that Kraft Heinz had not published or otherwise made the rule known to her.
Duncan further alleges that male employees who committed the same acts were not terminated. The complaint states that she was treated less favorably than similarly situated male employees because of her sex and that her termination was discriminatory.
Additional details are included in a discrimination charge Duncan submitted to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
In that filing, Duncan said she had been engaged in protected activity on April 16, when she verbally reported what she described as an immediate workplace safety hazard involving forklift operations, blind spots and an endangered forklift operator.
She alleges that less than eight hours later, she was abruptly suspended and terminated under what she characterized as an unenforced safety rule.
Duncan's EEOC filing also identifies male operators whom she says committed the same safety-rule infraction but were not immediately suspended or terminated. She alleges the differing treatment constituted discrimination based on her sex.
The filing states that Duncan submitted a formal request to Kraft Heinz's Human Resources department on April 23, three days after her termination.
According to the EEOC charge, the document notified the company of her allegations of ongoing discrimination and requested that video records be preserved.
Duncan also alleges that a Human Resources representative later confirmed in writing that video records had been reviewed and that the male operators had committed the infractions she identified.
According to her EEOC filing, the representative stated that the company considered the portion of her termination involving those infractions officially closed, while also acknowledging that the company had not fully investigated the connection between her safety whistleblowing and her dismissal.
The EEOC charge identifies sex as the basis of the alleged discrimination and also references retaliation. Duncan states in the filing that she believes she was discriminated against based on her sex and in retaliation for engaging in protected activity, which she says violated Title VII.
The EEOC subsequently issued Duncan a determination and notice of rights.
The document included with the lawsuit states that the agency would not proceed further with its investigation and would make no determination as to whether further investigation would establish a violation of the statute.
It also states that the determination did not mean the claims had no merit and did not certify that the employer was in compliance with the law.
The EEOC notice informed Duncan that the agency had dismissed her charge and issued her a right-to-sue notice, allowing her to pursue the matter in federal or state court.
The notice states that a lawsuit based on the charge generally must be filed within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC's dismissal notice.
The federal complaint alleges that Duncan was damaged as a result of Kraft Heinz's actions and asks the court to award the damages and other relief permitted by law.
Duncan has demanded a jury trial. The complaint, however, contains allegations rather than findings by the court, and the documents provided do not include a response from Kraft Heinz to the lawsuit.
Duncan is seeking damages including back and front pay, emotional distress damages, attorney fees, punitive damages and costs.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri case number: 6:26-cv-3612
