Allegations of racial bias, age discrimination, and retaliation have been brought forward in a federal lawsuit by a former employee who claims he was wrongfully terminated after raising concerns about workplace inequities. The complaint was filed by Julian Darby on March 30, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against Ronpak, Inc.
According to the filing, Julian Darby began working at Ronpak on November 5, 2021, most recently serving in the quality control department until his employment ended on May 13, 2025. Darby asserts that during his tenure he received positive performance reviews with no documented issues or policy violations. He states that he was respected by supervisors and coworkers alike.
The central dispute arose following an April 21, 2025 meeting where Darby reports he addressed what he described as unlawful employment practices violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and company policies. During this meeting with company leadership—including Chief Operation Officer Charlotte Reese—Darby outlined concerns about plant morale and high turnover rates. He specifically raised issues related to alleged mistreatment of Black employees compared to White, Mexican, and foreign-born workers. Darby claims that many Black employees voiced their concerns to him but were afraid to speak up due to fear of retaliation.
Darby alleges that after speaking out about these issues—citing racism, nepotism, cronyism, favoritism, national origin discrimination, and internalization discrimination—he faced immediate backlash from management. On May 7, 2025, he was suspended pending investigation by Ray Kitchen (Director of Quality Control), which Darby describes as preplanned disciplinary action without probable cause or evidence. He further claims that his direct supervisor was not involved or aware of any wrongdoing attributed to him.
On May 13, 2025, Darby was informed via phone call by Charlotte Reese (Chief Operation Officer) and Kristini Amyot (Corporate Human Resource Manager) that his employment was terminated following an investigation into his attendance at Police Jury meetings—a reason Darby disputes as false and pretextual. He contends this explanation shifted over time from missing meetings to insubordination and attendance issues signed off by another human resources staff member.
The complaint outlines several legal claims including race discrimination under Title VII; retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices; age discrimination based on being treated less favorably than younger employees; violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for failing to accommodate his Type 2 Diabetes; national origin discrimination favoring Mexican and foreign-born workers over Black employees; slander/defamation related to statements made about him during the investigation; as well as broader patterns of favoritism and cronyism within the company hierarchy.
Darby describes instances where other Black employees were allegedly disciplined more harshly than non-Black counterparts for similar infractions or denied opportunities afforded to others based on race or family connections within management. The complaint also includes examples where younger or non-Black employees were rehired quickly after termination while Black employees were held to stricter standards regarding rehire eligibility.
Regarding disability accommodations under ADA protections, Darby states he requested modifications for sick days due to medical complications but was denied reasonable accommodation despite providing doctor’s notes. He argues this led to protected absences being counted against him in violation of federal law.
In addition to detailing individual grievances, the filing asserts there is a systemic pattern or practice within Ronpak’s administration resulting in widespread disadvantage against Black employees through structured policies allegedly normalizing unequal treatment.
For relief, Darby requests the court order Ronpak to implement new policies ensuring equal employment opportunities for those exercising federally protected rights; provide back pay; compensate for pecuniary losses such as job search expenses and medical costs; award damages for emotional pain and reputational harm; pay punitive damages for alleged malicious conduct; require diversity training among staff; cover attorney fees; and grant other remedies deemed appropriate under Title VII and ADA statutes. The total amount sought is $8.7 million in damages.
Julian Darby is representing himself in this matter (pro se). No attorneys are listed in the filing provided. The case is identified as Case No. 5:26-cv-1006.
Source: 526cv1006_Julian_Darby_v_Ronpak_Incorporation_Complaint_Western_District_of_Louisiana.pdf
