David Chapman sued Amazon.com Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims of race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In a two-page order, the District Court promptly disposed of Amazon’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
David Chapman, a black employee at an Amazon warehouse, was involved in an altercation with Donnell Nunn, a white co-worker, over a dispute regarding carts. According to Chapman, Nunn swung his arm towards him and approached him, leading to a verbal discussion. Jaden Hardyway, a black co-worker, intervened and placed his hand on Nunn. Chapman alleges that Nunn slapped Hardyway’s hand. Later the same day, Chapman claims that Danny McDaniel, another white co-worker, confronted him in a threatening manner.
The day after the incidents, Chapman submitted a letter to Amazon requesting preservation of video footage from both incidents. Cassondra Redmond, the decision-maker in Chapman’s termination, directed Amazon staff to shred Chapman’s letter, and the video of the second incident was not preserved. Hardyway received verbal counseling for placing his hand on Nunn. Chapman was terminated less than a week after the incident, while Nunn and McDaniel were not disciplined.
Amazon’s stated reason for terminating Chapman was that he violated Amazon’s Standards of Conduct by threatening to punch Nunn.
Legal Analysis
Race Discrimination Claims:
The court found that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding Chapman’s race discrimination claims. While Amazon provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Chapman’s termination (the alleged threat to punch Nunn), Chapman presented evidence that cast doubt on this justification.
Pretext:
The court determined that Chapman’s evidence was sufficient to show that Amazon’s explanation for his termination could be pretextual. Key factors in this determination included:
- Disparate treatment: Amazon failed to discipline white employees (Nunn and McDaniel) for alleged violations of company policies, while terminating Chapman and verbally counseling Hardyway, both black employees.
- Destruction of evidence: Amazon shredded Chapman’s complaint letter and failed to preserve video footage of the second incident.
- Inconsistent application of policies: The court noted that Nunn’s alleged slap of Hardyway’s hand could be considered a violation of the same policy Chapman was accused of violating.
The court concluded that the evidence presented by Chapman was sufficient to create a triable issue of fact regarding whether Amazon’s proffered reason for termination was pretextual. Consequently, the court denied Amazon’s motion for summary judgment, allowing Chapman’s race discrimination claims to proceed to trial.
Schrag on Law 