Amazon Call-Center Employee Fired for Forwarding Calls Loses ADA Claim

​A call-center representative for Amazon with Crohn's disease who sought scheduling and location accommodations could not prove disability discrimination after he was fired for forwarding calls to other representatives, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

Amazon hired the plaintiff as a seasonal customer service representative at a Kentucky-based call center. The job required him to troubleshoot with Amazon customers over the phone, duties Amazon tracked by requiring employees to maintain an "aux status." That status showed the representative's current activity, such as being on a call, attending a meeting or going on break. Amazon policy afforded the plaintiff various types of time off and required that, when he took a break, he needed to log it via his aux status.

Shortly after his hiring, the plaintiff disclosed to an HR professional that he had a chronic illness that required him to frequently visit the restroom without notice, and he asked for additional break time as needed. Amazon viewed the inquiry as a potential accommodations request under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and gave the plaintiff various forms to complete to allow Amazon's Leave of Absence Accommodations (LOAA) team to obtain the necessary information, such as medical confirmation, to resolve the request.

The plaintiff did not respond, and Amazon administratively closed the case, with the understanding that the plaintiff could reopen it by submitting the information. After several months, the plaintiff was hired on a nontemporary basis and assigned to the search and rescue team, which handles difficult, unresolved calls from customers. Around that time, the plaintiff visited his gastroenterologist and decided to reopen his accommodations inquiry with Amazon.

The plaintiff and his gastroenterologist submitted forms to Amazon describing that his condition required more breaks for bathroom use and necessitated him taking time off work. The gastroenterologist indicated that the plaintiff needed to have a bathroom facility readily available to him. Amazon asked for more information and the plaintiff responded that his work hours should be reduced from 40 to 32 hours per week and that he needed the ability to use the restroom whenever he had an episode.

The LOAA representative asked for supporting documentation from the gastroenterologist, but the plaintiff did not provide the information, even when the representative followed up with him. The LOAA administratively closed the request pending additional information. The plaintiff became frustrated and abandoned the request.

Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff got a new supervisor, with whom he claimed to have a personal conflict. The supervisor criticized his poor customer ratings relative to her other subordinates and issued him a written warning. He complained to his supervisor in response, and she then discovered that he had been confrontational to customers to the point of hanging up on them. She issued him another written warning.

A few weeks later, the plaintiff's supervisor warned him that he missed more customer calls than anyone else on her team. He blamed system issues with his computer, so the supervisor had it replaced. The supervisor later counseled him that he took excessive breaks, and he mentioned his Crohn's disease. The supervisor told him to request an accommodation with HR, but he did not do so.

The plaintiff later complained that his computer system incorrectly logged his breaks. When the supervisor investigated, she discovered that the plaintiff often switched his aux status to a setting that would route calls received at the end of his shift to others. The plaintiff admitted this practice, and the supervisor consulted other managers and decided to terminate his employment.

The plaintiff sued Amazon under the ADA and state law, claiming failure to accommodate and wrongful termination. Amazon moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted.

On appeal, the 6th Circuit considered the plaintiff's accommodation claim. It noted that the plaintiff's gastroenterologist admitted that the initial accommodation requests lacked specificity. The court also found that the plaintiff did not provide necessary supporting documentation and later abandoned the requests, thus requiring dismissal of the claim.

Regarding wrongful discharge, the court found that Amazon provided a valid reason for the termination, which was the plaintiff's abuse of his aux status to sign out of work early to avoid customer calls. The court found this to be a quintessential legitimate reason for termination. It thus upheld the dismissal of the claim.

Stover v. Amazon.com, LLC, 6th Cir., No. 21-5421 (Jan. 10, 2022).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.