Oliver v. Amazon.com Services LLC
2:22-cv-00149
| E.D. Wis. | Sep 13, 2023Background
- Jasmine Oliver worked for Amazon MKE1 (Nov 2018–June 18, 2020) in fulfillment roles (packer, singles, flats, re-bin, induct).
- Co-worker rumors about Oliver being transgender prompted complaints to HR in July 2019; Oliver reported anxiety/PTSD and requested reassignment away from specific co-workers and provided medical notes.
- Between 2019–2020 Oliver reported repeated unwanted sexual advances by an unnamed associate and escalating harassment by Tommy Lee Robinson (including unwanted touching and an incident where Robinson threw a label-maker); Oliver reported Robinson to HR/ethics hotline and police.
- On May 18 and May 23, 2020 Oliver had confrontations with co-worker Marissa Dyess; after the May 23 incident Amazon suspended then terminated Oliver on June 18, 2020 for violating workplace violence/standards of conduct.
- Oliver filed multiple ERD/EEOC charges (first: Aug 28, 2019). She later sued Amazon pro se alleging ADA failure to accommodate and retaliation, Title VII sex discrimination/harassment/retaliation, and § 1981 race discrimination/retaliation.
- Amazon moved for summary judgment; it argued judicial estoppel based on a bankruptcy nondisclosure and, on the merits, asserted nondiscriminatory grounds (policy violations, lack of proof of causation or employer liability). The court declined judicial estoppel but granted summary judgment to Amazon on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial estoppel for failing to disclose claims in bankruptcy | Oliver says she disclosed potential claims to bankruptcy counsel and answered “yes” on Schedule B | Amazon says Oliver failed to list claims against Amazon on schedules and thus should be estopped | Court declined judicial estoppel (no clear unfair advantage or detriment; case dismissed on merits) |
| ADA discrimination (termination) | Oliver: termination tied to disability-related complaints/requests and inconsistent treatment | Amazon: terminated for violating violence/standards of conduct; unacceptable behavior disqualifies even if disability-related | Dismissed — even if disabled, termination for threatening/fighting conduct is lawful (employer need not retain potentially violent employee) |
| ADA failure to accommodate (reassignment away from coworkers) | Oliver requested move because certain coworkers triggered her PTSD/anxiety | Amazon: accommodation request effectively asks to avoid particular coworkers; Seventh Circuit authority rejects disability defined by inability to work with certain people | Dismissed — plaintiff not a "qualified individual" where limitation is only to working with particular coworkers (Weiler principle) |
| Title VII sex discrimination (termination) | Oliver alleges termination due to sex | Amazon: termination based on misconduct; no evidence linking termination to sex | Dismissed — plaintiff offered no developed evidence (no meaningful comparator or link to sex) |
| Title VII hostile work environment (coworker harassment) | Oliver: rumors, repeated unwanted advances, and Robinson’s physical/egregious conduct created hostile environment | Amazon: had harassment policies and reporting system; Oliver often did not identify assailants or declined further follow-up; employer responded reasonably | Partial factual support re: Robinson and unnamed associate conduct, but dismissal granted because Oliver failed to show employer negligence/control for unnamed assailant and declined/failed to pursue IDs for Robinson investigation |
| Title VII retaliation (termination after ERD/EEOC filings) | Oliver: termination pretextual and retaliatory (points to metadata of termination email) | Amazon: termination followed May 23 incident; metadata claim speculative and unsupported; temporal gap weakens causation | Dismissed — no causal link shown; metadata argument unreliable and timing insufficient to establish causation |
| § 1981 race discrimination and retaliation | Oliver: some white employees alleged to have engaged in similar conduct but received milder discipline or promotions | Amazon: comparators not shown to be similarly situated; no race-based complaints/notice or protected activity shown | Dismissed — inadequate comparator evidence and no developed retaliation theory based on race |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for summary judgment and genuine issue of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (drawing inferences against nonmovant limited at summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (2013) (employer liability standards for supervisor vs. coworker harassment)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (severe or pervasive standard for hostile work environment)
- Palmer v. Circuit Court of Cook County, 117 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 1997) (employer need not retain potentially violent employee despite disability)
- Weiler v. Household Finance Corp., 101 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 1996) (disability cannot be limited to inability to work with particular supervisor/coworkers)
- Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453 F.3d 446 (2006) (judicial estoppel in bankruptcy context)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel discretionary factors)