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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more