Kendall Mills sued Amazon.com Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, raising claims of discrimination and retaliation under the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview:
Mills, a dark-skinned African American male and disabled veteran with PTSD, was hired by Amazon as an area manager in August 2021. He alleges he experienced various forms of discrimination and harassment, including being denied training opportunities, staff benefits, and holiday gifts that were provided to non-minority employees. Mills claims he was transferred to night shift despite having childcare concerns, while a Caucasian employee was not transferred due to similar concerns. He also alleges he was asked to dress as a clown for Black History Month.
In March 2022, Mills filed an ethics complaint regarding the discriminatory treatment he and other African American employees were experiencing. He claims Amazon retaliated by opening an investigation into him for alleged aggressive behavior towards other employees. Mills filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights Enforcement in November 2022 and received a notice of right to sue in January 2024. He then filed this lawsuit in state court in April 2024, which Amazon removed to federal court.
Legal Analysis:
OADA Claims: The court dismissed Mills’ retaliation and aiding and abetting discrimination claims under the OADA, finding that Oklahoma law does not provide a remedy for these claims against employers under the statute.
Disparate Treatment Claims: The court allowed Mills’ disparate treatment claims based on race and color under the OADA, Title VII, and § 1981 to proceed. The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court recently lowered the threshold for adverse employment actions in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, eliminating the requirement that the harm be “significant.” The court found Mills’ allegations of denied training opportunities, staff benefits, and night shift transfer were sufficient to state a plausible claim.
However, the court dismissed Mills’ disparate treatment claim based on disability under the OADA, finding insufficient factual allegations to support it.
Retaliation Claims: The court allowed Mills’ retaliation claim based on race and color under § 1981 to proceed, finding that the alleged investigation into Mills after he filed an ethics complaint could constitute an adverse action that might dissuade a reasonable worker from making a discrimination charge.
The court dismissed Mills’ retaliation claim under the ADA, as he failed to allege that his ethics complaint related to disability discrimination.
Hostile Work Environment Claims: The court dismissed Mills’ hostile work environment claims under Title VII, § 1981, and the OADA, finding that his allegations did not rise to the level of severe or pervasive harassment required to state a plausible claim.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The court dismissed Mills’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, finding that he failed to allege facts demonstrating extreme and outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress.
The court granted in part and denied in part Amazon’s motion to dismiss, allowing Mills’ claims of disparate treatment based on race and color under the OADA, Title VII, and § 1981, and retaliation based on race and color under § 1981 to proceed, while dismissing all other claims.
Schrag on Law 