Filing claims Amazon approved accommodations, then fired worker after medical leave request
Amazon warehouse worker’s lawsuit spotlights alleged missteps in disability accommodations, FMLA leave and manager follow-through that should make HR leaders sit up.
On January 30, 2026, a former warehouse worker sued Amazon.com Services, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Case No. 2:26‑cv‑00229. The document is a complaint setting out her allegations and does not reflect any final decision. The complaint also refers to Amazon.com, Inc. as the employer.
According to the filing, Maria Banuelos began working as a Warehouse Worker/Fulfillment Associate for Amazon.com, Inc. on or about June 2022. Beginning in or around late 2022, she allegedly experienced severe pain in her heels, particularly her right foot, which her physician attributed to company‑mandated toe‑capped shoes and extensive walking required by her job duties. Her condition was diagnosed as bilateral medial plantar fasciitis and neuritis pain, which she says substantially limited her ability to stand and walk.
The complaint states that on or about December 1, 2023, Banuelos underwent her first foot surgery on her right foot. She alleges she took six months of FMLA‑protected medical leave from December 2023 through June 2024 for this surgery and recovery.
On or about June 2024, when she returned to work, Banuelos requested accommodations including no lifting more than 10 pounds, light walking, sitting for five hours of her shift, extra breaks and permission to wear regular tennis shoes instead of work shoes. According to the complaint, Amazon denied this accommodation request, automatically removed her from the work schedule and refused to engage in the interactive process.
Banuelos then worked with her physician to develop modified accommodations: light walking, no lifting more than 10 pounds, two extra breaks and regular tennis shoes. The complaint states that Amazon approved these modified accommodations and that Banuelos successfully performed her job duties with them in place.
On or about September 15, 2024, Banuelos allegedly underwent a second foot surgery to remove metal hardware due to complications from her first surgery. The filing says Amazon approved her FMLA leave request from September through November 2024.
On or about November 2024, Banuelos returned to work with suggested accommodations from her doctor to allow for light walking, no lifting over 10 pounds and extra 15‑minute breaks. According to the complaint, Amazon approved her request for reasonable accommodation up through July 2025. Despite that approval, her manager Juan (last name unknown) allegedly refused to abide by her accommodation and instead forced her to stand for the entirety of her 10‑hour shifts.
In or around March 2025, the complaint states, Banuelos’s bilateral plantar medial heel pain worsened. She informed Amazon that she needed to take time off work to visit her medical provider on March 11, 2025, and Amazon subsequently approved her request for time off for the appointment. At that appointment, her provider recommended medical leave from March 11, 2025, through May 31, 2025. Banuelos alleges she promptly informed Amazon and said her provider would fax the recommendation. In response, according to the filing, Amazon assured her that while it was waiting for the recommendation from her medical provider, her absences would be excused.
The complaint states that on March 19, 2025, Banuelos’s medical provider faxed the leave recommendation to Amazon. That same day, instead of engaging in the interactive process, Amazon allegedly terminated her employment. Banuelos says she attempted to appeal the termination, but Amazon chose not to reverse its decision.
The lawsuit asserts eight claims, including workplace discrimination and retaliation under Nevada law, disability discrimination and retaliation under federal law, failure to provide reasonable accommodation under both Nevada law and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Banuelos seeks compensatory damages, liquidated damages, emotional distress damages, punitive and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs and pre‑ and post‑judgment interest.
For HR executives, the filing highlights alleged gaps between centrally approved accommodations and how they are carried out by managers, as well as the risks around handling medical leave, documentation and termination decisions for workers returning from surgery in physically demanding roles.
