Grocery Chain Fired Newly Hired Non-Chinese Managers After a Leadership Change and Paid Non-Chinese Staff Less — The EEOC Sued in June 2026

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

A longtime Asian grocery chain with stores across the country is facing a federal lawsuit that paints a blunt picture of what workers say happened after a change at the top: non-Chinese employees were pushed aside, underpaid, and quietly squeezed out.

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced it had sued Tawa Supermarket, Inc., which operates as 99 Ranch Market, alleging national origin discrimination against non-Chinese workers. The details are laid out in the agency’s press release, and they describe a pattern that the EEOC says stretches back years and across multiple store locations.

What workers say changed after new leadership came in

The EEOC’s lawsuit claims the trouble started “since at least 2016,” and ties the shift directly to a leadership change at the company. The allegation isn’t just that some employees felt overlooked—it’s that newly hired non-Chinese managers were allegedly terminated at multiple locations after that change.

That detail matters because it suggests the people being cut weren’t longtime employees who’d fallen out of favor over performance disputes. These were “recently hired” managers, which can read like a door opening and then slamming shut once a new internal preference took over.

In the EEOC’s view, the motive was straightforward: bias in favor of Chinese workers, with non-Chinese staff treated as less desirable once leadership priorities shifted.

Not just firings: pay, promotions, and hours were part of it

The lawsuit described by the EEOC doesn’t stop at managers getting terminated. It also alleges non-Chinese store-level employees were blocked from promotions because they were not Chinese, paid less than Chinese workers, and scheduled for fewer hours than Chinese counterparts.

Those pieces—pay and hours—are where the alleged discrimination becomes a day-to-day squeeze. Even without a termination, being consistently shorted on hours can mean falling behind on rent, losing childcare, or being forced to pick up a second job. And if promotions are quietly out of reach, employees can end up trapped doing more work without the title or wage increases that come with moving up.

The EEOC also says some non-Chinese workers felt they had no choice but to resign. That’s the kind of allegation that points to pressure building over time: not necessarily one dramatic blow-up, but a workplace where staying becomes financially or emotionally untenable.

A chain with a huge footprint—and a lot of workers impacted

99 Ranch Market isn’t a single neighborhood store where a messy management change affects a handful of people. The EEOC notes that Tawa Supermarket has at least 66 locations across multiple states, including California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Arizona, and Virginia.

The company is described as a private, family-owned business headquartered in Buena Park, California. That combination—family-owned, culturally specific brand identity, multi-state operations—can create a complicated workplace dynamic when leadership decisions are filtered through ideas about who “fits” and who doesn’t.

The EEOC’s lawsuit, though, is built around a simple legal line: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on national origin, regardless of what kind of business you are or what your customer base looks like.

The EEOC’s message: “cultural preference” doesn’t excuse discrimination

The agency didn’t hedge in its public statements. Catherine Eschbach, the EEOC’s acting general counsel, said the EEOC “will not hesitate to bring litigation” to make clear that “cultural preference regarding the composition of their workforce does not insulate them from liability.” She added that preferences based on protected characteristics are “simply a form of illegal discrimination under Title VII.”

That framing is pointed because it tackles a defense that sometimes pops up in customer-facing jobs: the idea that the staff should match the perceived expectations of the clientele, or that a certain group is believed to be more efficient in that setting. The EEOC addressed that too.

Christine Park-Gonzalez, director of the EEOC’s Los Angeles District, said, “Customer preference or beliefs that workers from certain groups are more productive do not justify national origin discrimination. Employers must follow federal law and not exclude workers due to national origin.”

Beatriz B. Andre, acting regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District, reinforced the point in plainer terms: “All workers have a right to equal treatment at work regardless of their national origin.”

How it got to court after settlement talks didn’t land

The EEOC filed the case—EEOC v. Tawa Supermarket, Inc. dba 99 Ranch Market, et al., Case No. 8:26-cv-01682—in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The agency says it did so after first trying to resolve the dispute through its administrative process.

Specifically, the EEOC said it attempted to reach a “pre-litigation settlement” through conciliation, which is the step where the agency tries to negotiate a remedy before suing. When that didn’t result in an agreement, the EEOC moved forward with litigation.

At this stage, the lawsuit filing is the escalation point—not the finish line. The EEOC is essentially saying it believes the evidence supports a systemic pattern, and it’s taking that claim to federal court.

What people tend to focus on in cases like this: receipts, schedules, and paper trails

Even without a comment thread attached to the press release, the allegations described by the EEOC hit the same pressure points workers and workplace advocates usually fixate on: proof that a pattern exists, and proof that it tracks along a protected characteristic like national origin.

In practical terms, that often comes down to the most mundane documents imaginable—pay records, time sheets, posted schedules, promotion decisions, offer letters, termination paperwork, and internal communications about staffing. Wage differences and hour cuts can be measured. Promotion denials can be compared across similar roles. And if recently hired managers were terminated after a leadership change, timelines matter.

That’s why federal agencies lean heavily on documentation in systemic discrimination cases. It’s not just about one person’s account—it’s about whether the numbers and the decision-making trail show a consistent tilt.

For workers, it’s also why these disputes can feel so destabilizing. When hours and pay are used as levers, the harm shows up in bank accounts before it shows up in a courtroom.

The lawsuit now puts those allegations into a formal process where the company will have to respond, and where the EEOC will try to prove that non-Chinese workers were treated worse in firing decisions, promotions, wages, and scheduling. Meanwhile, the chain continues operating in dozens of communities, with current employees watching closely to see whether the case changes anything on the ground.