Ashmeade v. Amazon.com

Background

Keith Ashmeade, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Amazon.com Services LLC and four individual defendants: Audrey Atwell, Joe McLaughlin, Janet Simonelli, and Dan Willard-Concepcion. He alleged race and age discrimination, retaliation, workplace-safety violations, and several claims under New York law. His fourteen claims included claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York Labor Law, as well as negligence, wrongful termination theories, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Ashmeade alleged that he worked as an Operations Manager II at Amazon’s SWF1 Fulfillment Center from approximately January 2021 until May 9, 2023. He claimed that Atwell and other Amazon employees treated him unfairly because he is African American and approximately fifty years old, imposed unusually demanding work expectations, favored Caucasian and younger employees, placed him on performance-improvement plans, and ultimately terminated him. He also alleged that conveyor equipment was modified to disable safety sensors, causing injuries, including an injury to a finger on his right hand, and that he complained internally and to government agencies.

Service on the Individual Defendants

The court concluded that Ashmeade had not properly served the four individual defendants. His attempted service through New York’s Department of State used a method applicable to corporate entities, not individuals. The court ordered him to properly serve those defendants within thirty days of the opinion. If he fails to do so, the court may dismiss the action against them without prejudice.

Claims Against Amazon

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to make a legal claim plausible. Because Ashmeade was proceeding without a lawyer, the court considered factual allegations and exhibits submitted with his opposition papers when they were consistent with his complaint and interpreted his allegations liberally.

Title VII claims. The court dismissed Claims I through IV under Title VII because Ashmeade had not exhausted the required administrative process. Although he stated generally that he had exhausted his remedies, the materials showed that he filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge no earlier than August 9, 2023—after he filed the lawsuit and the operative complaint. He also did not allege that he had received the required right-to-sue letter before filing. The court therefore dismissed the Title VII claims without reaching the parties’ arguments about their merits.

Age-discrimination claim. The court concluded that Ashmeade had exhausted the administrative requirements for his Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim, but dismissed Claim VII on the merits. For an age-discrimination claim, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that age was the reason the employer took the adverse action, rather than merely one factor. The court found that Ashmeade’s allegations about increased workloads, reduced resources, and replacement by younger employees did not plausibly show that age caused the alleged actions. The court also found that his disparate-impact theory did not identify a specific neutral employment policy that caused a disparity affecting older workers.

Occupational Safety and Health Act claims. The court dismissed Claims V and VI with prejudice because the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not create a private right of action allowing employees to sue under that statute.

Negligence claim. The court dismissed Claim VIII because New York’s workers’ compensation law generally provides the exclusive remedy for negligence claims arising from workplace injuries. The court found that Ashmeade’s claim concerned injuries allegedly sustained while working. It also found that he did not plausibly allege the intentional conduct directed at harming him that could potentially qualify for an exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed Claim XIV because the alleged retaliation, discrimination, abusive treatment, performance plan, criticism, and termination did not plausibly amount to the extreme and outrageous conduct required under New York law.

Other claims. The court dismissed Claims IX through XIII because Ashmeade did not respond to Amazon’s arguments seeking dismissal of those claims and therefore abandoned them. To the extent Claim XII asserted a Title VII claim, the court also dismissed it for the same exhaustion reason applicable to the other Title VII claims.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Amazon’s motion. The Occupational Safety and Health Act claims were dismissed with prejudice. The other claims against Amazon were dismissed without prejudice because this was the first adjudication on the merits of those claims against Amazon. Ashmeade was given thirty days to file a third amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. The court stated that the amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing complaint and must include all claims and factual allegations he wished to pursue. If he failed to amend within thirty days, the dismissed claims could be dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.