Anderson v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Background

Keesha Anderson alleged that she worked for Amazon Music from August 2019 through February 2022 and was subjected to race discrimination and retaliation. She asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Music executives Steve Boom and Ryan Redington. Her allegations included exclusion from meetings and events, reduced budgets and responsibilities, unfavorable assignments, a performance-improvement plan, and interference with promotion and transfer opportunities after she complained to human resources and management.

Amazon and the Individual Defendants moved to dismiss. The opinion considered whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Boom and Redington and whether Anderson plausibly pleaded discrimination and retaliation claims.

Personal Jurisdiction Over Boom and Redington

Anderson relied on New York’s long-arm statute, including provisions concerning business transactions and out-of-state defendants whose conduct causes injury in New York. She argued that Amazon’s recruiting activity and Brooklyn offices could be attributed to Boom and Redington because Amazon acted as their agent. She also sought discovery concerning their revenue.

The court rejected those arguments. Anderson did not allege facts showing that Boom and Redington knew of, benefited from, or controlled the recruiting activity. The court also concluded that Amazon’s offices served Amazon’s interests, not the individual executives’ interests. Their involvement in securing a lease, overseeing a renovation, and attending an event did not establish the continuing or substantial New York-related conduct required for jurisdiction. The court further held that Amazon’s revenue could not simply be attributed to its employees and that Anderson had not made a sufficient showing to justify jurisdictional discovery.

Because Boom and Redington were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court stated that venue was proper in the district as to the remaining case against Amazon. The court granted the Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and directed that Boom and Redington be terminated from the docket.

Discrimination Claims Against Amazon

The court analyzed Anderson’s discrimination claims under § 1981 and the state and city human-rights laws. It rejected her hostile-work-environment theory because the alleged conduct—such as criticism, exclusion, diminished responsibilities, a reduced budget, and the performance-improvement plan—did not rise to the level of severe or pervasive abuse required under the applicable federal standard. The court also rejected constructive discharge, which requires working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel forced to resign.

The court separately held that Anderson plausibly alleged other adverse employment actions. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the court concluded that a § 1981 discrimination plaintiff need not show that the challenged action was “materially adverse.” Anderson plausibly alleged that the performance-improvement plan and diminished role harmed her employment benefits, privileges, terms, or conditions by assigning her worse or lower-level work, affecting her record and advancement prospects, temporarily blocking transfers, and excluding her from meetings and projects. The court also found that her allegations met the minimal requirement for suggesting discriminatory motive.

The court reached a similar conclusion under the New York State and New York City human-rights laws. Anderson alleged that she was treated less well or subjected to inferior employment conditions because of race. The court held that it could not determine as a matter of law that those allegations were truly insubstantial, particularly because they involved advancement opportunities, changing managers, menial assignments, criticism, and a performance-improvement plan.

Retaliation Claims Against Amazon

The court held that Anderson plausibly alleged retaliation based on the performance-improvement plan. Her complaints to human resources and management constituted the alleged protected activity, and the complaint plausibly alleged sufficient corporate knowledge. The court also concluded that a performance-improvement plan could dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination complaint, especially when it affected transfer and advancement opportunities.

For causation, the court noted that Anderson did not rely primarily on timing because the plan began more than a year after her complaint about Akzin. Instead, she relied on statements attributed to an anonymous whistleblower, who allegedly said that Anderson would not have been targeted for termination or subjected to the plan had she not complained. Although the court expressed skepticism about the whistleblower’s account and noted tensions between it and other allegations, it accepted the account as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss. The court held that the retaliation claims under § 1981, the state law, and the city law could proceed against Amazon.

Disposition

Judge Arun Subramanian granted the Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. He denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss. The order therefore ended the case as to Boom and Redington but allowed Anderson’s claims against Amazon to continue. The court did not determine whether Anderson will ultimately prevail on those claims.