Skip to main content

Failure to Plausibly Allege Termination Due to Racial Discrimination Dooms Discrimination & Retaliation Claims


Smalls v. Amazon.com Services, LLC - United States District Court, Eastern District of New York


Facts:  Christian Smalls (“Smalls”) worked at an Amazon fulfillment center and had approximately 60 workers that reported to him.  In March 2020, Smalls claimed that Amazon failed to implement policies to protect the fulfillment center workers, who were mainly minorities, from contracting the coronavirus.

In late March, Smalls learned he had been in close contact with with a worker that tested positive for the coronavirus.  When he reported to work the next day, Smalls discovered there was no quarantine policy in place for close contacts, including himself.  Smalls requested that his superiors require a quarantine for any close contacts.  Over the next few days, Smalls apparently served as a go between with a group of minority workers and upper management at the fulfillment center in which Smalls pushed for better protections for workers.  After apparently getting no cooperation from upper management, Smalls claims he eventually made progress.  Smalls was subsequently told to quarantine with pay.

However, Smalls appeared at the workplace the day after being told to quarantine in order to lead a demonstration.  That demonstration sought to have the fulfillment center close until a deep cleaning could occur and sought to address the company’s alleged failure to protect the workers.  Within two hours of the demonstration, Smalls claims he was terminated.  Amazon claims that Smalls violated the order to quarantine and put others at risk by appearing at the demonstration.

Smalls proceeded to file suit against Amazon on the grounds that he was unlawfully terminated and retaliated against due to his race.  Amazon moved to dismiss the claim on the grounds that Smalls had not plead any facts to show he was terminated or retaliated against due to his race or engaging in a protected activity.

Holding:  Let us break this down in two parts, in regard to the unlawful termination and retaliation claims.

Unlawful Termination Claim

For a claimant to defeat a motion to dismiss, facts must have been set out that plausibly allege that 1) the claimant was within a protected class; 2) the claimant was qualified for the position; 3) the claimant was subject to an adverse employment action; and 4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. 

In this case, the Court turned to the fourth factor and pointed out that Smalls had failed to allege any plausible facts which would show he was terminated due to his race.  While Smalls alleged he was terminated within two hours of leading the demonstration, there was no inference that could be drawn that his race lead to the decision to terminate him.  Instead, the facts as set out in the complaint filed by Smalls noted that Amazon terminated him because of his violation of the order to quarantine.  Consequently, Smalls failed to meet his burden to establish an unlawful termination by Amazon.

Retaliation Claim

For a claimant to defeat a motion to dismiss, facts must have been set out that plausibly allege that 1) the claimant engaged in a protected activity; 2) the claimant was subject to a materially adverse employment action; and 3) a connection exists between the first and second elements.  Protesting racial discrimination is a protected activity.  However, making general complaints or airing grievances about health or safety is not a protected activity.  

In this case, the Court noted that there was no evidence in the complaint filed by Smalls that Amazon was aware that he had complained about discrimination prior to being terminated.  While Smalls made complaints about what the company was doing in regard to protect workers from the coronavirus, he had not complained of race discrimination.  The Court recognized that Smalls had failed to complain Amazon’s coronavirus policies were racially discriminatory, as opposed to simply being unsafe or insufficient.  Accordingly, the allegations as set forth in the complaint filed by Smalls were insufficient to establish a claim for unlawful retaliation. 

Judgment:  The Court dismissed the unlawful termination and retaliation claims filed by a former employee against Amazon on the grounds that the complaint failed to plausibly allege Amazon terminated the employee due to his race as well as the complaint’s failure to plausibly allege that Amazon was aware of any prior claims of discrimination before the employee was terminated. 

The Takeaway:  As with any claimant that files a lawsuit, what is included (or in this case not included) in the complaint can be detrimental.  As always, this blog is not intended to serve as legal advice.  In doing so, I am not saying a claimant should make up whatever facts are needed to file a lawsuit and defeat a motion to dismiss.  Instead, I am suggesting, as here, that if the facts simply do not support a claim of discrimination or retaliation, maybe it would be a good idea to not file the lawsuit (or look at filing the lawsuit under a different cause of action in which a plausible case can be established.)

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Kovner

Date:  February 7, 2022

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more