Newton v. Bezos

Background

Melissa Newton worked as a cashier at Whole Foods for about 11 months. She has schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. On December 7, 2019, Whole Foods placed her on paid administrative leave after managers and other witnesses reported that she appeared intoxicated and acted aggressively during an incident at the store. Whole Foods terminated her employment on December 12, 2019.

Newton filed an administrative charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on December 20, 2019. The agency issued a notice allowing her to sue one week later. She filed this lawsuit on May 21, 2020. She alleged disability and gender discrimination, failure to accommodate her disability, failure to promote her, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. Whole Foods moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule without a trial when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party.

Disability Claims

The court held that Newton’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim was time-barred because she filed suit outside the required 90-day period after receiving the notice allowing her to sue. The court also ruled that her explanation—that she misunderstood the notice and was busy—did not justify extending the deadline.

The court considered Newton’s disability claims under the New York State Human Rights Law because those claims were timely. It applied the same legal standards used for disability claims under the federal law.

The court rejected Newton’s failure-to-accommodate claim. Even assuming that her conditions qualified as a disability, Newton testified that she never requested an accommodation. The court also found no evidence that Whole Foods had sufficient notice of her disability. Her possible disclosure of Social Security benefits during the hiring process was hypothetical, and her statement to a supervisor named Erica did not show that anyone with authority to accommodate her learned of the disability. Complaints about delayed breaks also did not identify the complaints as requests for an accommodation related to a disability.

The court rejected the failure-to-promote claim because Newton admitted that she never requested or applied for a promotion to a specific position.

As to termination, the court found that Whole Foods offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason: Newton’s alleged misconduct on December 7, including behavior that witnesses described as aggressive, profane, combative, and potentially affected by alcohol or drugs. Whole Foods’ policy treated threatening or outrageous behavior and being under the influence at work as major infractions that could justify immediate termination. Newton did not provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that this explanation was a pretext for disability discrimination. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the disability discrimination claims.

Gender Discrimination

Newton claimed that male cashiers were allowed to take breaks whenever they wanted, while she was not. The court held that being unable to take a break at the preferred time was not a materially adverse employment action. It also found no evidence that her termination was motivated by gender. Newton had not identified discriminatory comments or other evidence supporting an inference of gender-based bias. The court therefore ruled for Whole Foods on the gender-discrimination claim and stated that the claim was dismissed.

Retaliation

Newton claimed that Whole Foods retaliated against her for complaining about delayed breaks. The court held that she had not engaged in protected activity because she did not complain that Whole Foods was discriminating against her or violating an antidiscrimination law. Her general requests for her scheduled breaks did not qualify as protected complaints. The court also stated that, even assuming she could establish the basic elements of retaliation, the evidence showed that Whole Foods’ stated reason for terminating her was not pretextual.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Whole Foods’ motion for summary judgment. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion, mail Newton a copy of the order, and close the case.