Former Warehouse Employees Claim Amazon ‘Thins the Herd’ by Discriminating Against Older, Injured, Disabled Workers

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action removed to California federal court alleges Amazon.com Services, Inc. and Golden State FC LLC, which together operate Amazon warehouse fulfillment centers in the state, have discriminated against older, disabled workers by denying reasonable accommodations, the lack of which were sometimes to blame for supposedly wrongful terminations.

The lawsuit explains that most of the employees hired by the defendants between February 27, 2015, and February 27, 2019, (the class period) began as temporary, part-time, or seasonal workers, known as “white badge” employees. The goal for many of them, the case says, was to achieve permanent “blue badge” status. The lawsuit alleges, however, that the defendants’ policies and practices effectively prevented older, injured, or disabled workers from becoming permanent employees.

According to the lawsuit, many injured or disabled employees were wrongfully terminated due to issues stemming from the defendants’ “points” system. Under the system, the case explains, workers who had yet to accrue sick days would be given half or whole points if they were late or missed work. Yet when employees missed work due to work-related injuries or medical leave, their absences were frequently miscoded in the defendants’ system, the suit says, which caused the individuals to accrue enough points that eventually led to wrongful terminations. This miscoding, the lawsuit alleges, was no mere mistake within Amazon’s computer system.

The lawsuit alleges that many injured or disabled employees were forced out of their jobs due to the defendants’ apparent refusal to provide reasonable accommodations. One of the named plaintiffs, for example, says she was injured on the job and instructed to visit a doctor. Though the woman returned with a doctor’s note stating that she required light duty, the defendants supposedly refused to transfer her to another open position that would allow her to continue working. The case thusly alleges she was effectively forced out of her job due to the defendants’ failure to accommodate her work injury.

All told, the complaint alleges that the defendants’ discriminatory actions were meant to “thin[] the herd” of older, injured, or disabled workers who the companies believed would negatively impact their production rates.

“The net effect of Defendants' policies and practices insure that only employees who are demonstrably strong, fit, who are not injured and not disabled and able to maintain Defendants' demanding production quotas, and who don't accrue ‘points’ as described herein, are able to obtain a blue badge and permanent employment,” the complaint states. “Thus, the Plaintiffs and Class Members were/are consistently denied the same conditions and benefits and opportunities of employment as those employees who are not injured or who do not suffer from disabling medical condition or impairment.”

The full lawsuit can be read below.