Plaintiff Kendall Mills sued defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma raising claims of disparate treatment on the basis of race and color under the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as well as retaliation under § 1981. Before the court is Amazon’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
The court initially addressed plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s local rule LCvR56-1(c), which requires a response brief to include a section responding to the movant’s undisputed facts. Because Mills failed to include this section, the court deemed Amazon’s proffered facts admitted to the extent the evidence supported such an admission.
Amazon hired Mills, who is African American, as an area manager at its TUL5 sortation center in Tulsa, Oklahoma on August 16, 2021. At TUL5, a single site lead supervises five operations managers who supervise twelve area managers. Area managers supervise Amazon associates, who are part-time hourly employees. Four individuals supervised Mills during his employment: site lead Joshua Bailey (August-September 2021), operations manager Jared Harris (September 2021-March 2022), operations manager Damon Finley (March-June 2022), and operations manager Linda Baker (June 2022 to present).
After training in Oklahoma City, Mills began working the day shift when TUL5 opened in October 2021. In February 2022, Mills rotated to the night shift pursuant to Amazon’s regular rotation schedule and returned to the day shift in May 2022. Mills’ offer letter stated that employees are expected to work a variety of shifts based on business needs. Bailey decided to rotate Mills to the night shift because he was the only high-performing L5 area manager capable of succeeding on the night shift at that time.
In March 2022, Mills submitted a formal ethics complaint alleging several instances of discrimination, including denial of Thanksgiving pies, fresh pizza, a secret Santa gift, and a backpack with swag; being asked to dress up as a clown; and Cole’s failure to investigate a harassment complaint. Amazon investigated these allegations and found all of them unsubstantiated, except that Cole failed to properly investigate Mills’ complaint.
In September 2022, Mills requested and was granted a medical leave of absence, and he has not asked to return to work.
Legal Analysis
Disparate Treatment Claims:
The court analyzed Mills’ disparate treatment claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. To establish a prima facie case, Mills needed to show: (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) the challenged action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
The court found that Mills failed to establish the second element because none of his allegations constituted adverse employment actions. The court examined each alleged adverse action:
- Training opportunities: Mills alleged he was denied training when rotating shifts, but the court found that defendant did not offer such training to any employees at that time, and Mills succeeded on the night shift without additional training.
- Staff benefits: Mills alleged he was denied fresh pizza, Thanksgiving pies, and a backpack with swag, but the court found these did not relate to a term or condition of employment.
- Night shift rotation: Mills’ job responsibilities included working different shifts based on business needs, so the court found that the rotation did not constitute an adverse employment action.
- Rumors and Cole’s failure to investigate: The court found no evidence that Cole’s alleged failure to investigate harmed Mills.
- Request to dress as a clown: No evidence supported this allegation; rather, Bauer asked Mills and other managers to participate in a dress-your-manager engagement event, which was ultimately canceled after Mills declined to participate.
The court also found that Mills failed to establish the third element of a prima facie case because there was no evidence of an inference of discrimination. Mills offered no evidence that any decision maker made statements reflecting discriminatory animus, and Mills admitted that his supervisors did not make racially insensitive comments to him.
Even if Mills had established a prima facie case, the court found that Amazon articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, and Mills failed to show that these reasons were pretextual.
Retaliation Claim:
For the retaliation claim, Mills needed to show: (1) he engaged in protected opposition to discrimination, (2) a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the materially adverse action.
The court found that Mills’ March 2022 ethics complaint constituted protected activity, satisfying the first element. However, Mills failed to establish the second element because there was no evidence that he suffered any materially adverse action. Mills alleged that Amazon opened an investigation into his allegedly aggressive behavior and that an HR staff member called him crazy, but the court found no evidence that either action occurred. The evidence merely showed that Cole questioned Mills on an unspecified date regarding his behavior toward an associate.
Mills also failed to establish the third element (causal connection) because, without knowing when Cole questioned him, the court could not infer any causal connection between the ethics complaint and the questioning.
Even if Mills had established a prima facie case of retaliation, the court found that Amazon articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for questioning Mills—complaints by other employees—and Mills failed to show this reason was pretextual.
The court granted Amazon’s motion for summary judgment on all of Mills’ claims.
Schrag on Law 