She went from approved remote work to a 40-hour office mandate in a single email
An Amazon Web Services worker alleges the company approved her disability accommodations - then yanked them in a single email.
The worker, a military veteran living with anxiety and depression, filed a federal complaint on November 10, 2026, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. She brings claims against AWS under Title VII (sex discrimination), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Virginia Human Rights Act, alleging sex and disability discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.
According to the complaint, problems surfaced early.
AWS hired the worker in August 2022 as an Engagement Manager in its Worldwide Public Sector Professional Services organization. She was told managers at her level should carry no more than two full projects and keep their workload rate around 25 percent. Instead, the filing states, she was loaded with multiple projects from the outset - which the complaint alleges cut her off from professional development and networking.
Her direct supervisor at the time is alleged to have made "hostile and demeaning comments" and imposed "unwarranted and overly burdensome scrutiny of her work and prior industry experience," according to the complaint. When the worker asked about completing the company's Technical Development Program - a fast-track career program requiring certifications and panel briefings - the filing alleges he responded evasively, including with, "I don't know, are you [ready]?"
She completed the program in February 2023. But the complaint alleges her supervisor told her only the day before the graduation ceremony - too late to attend. According to the filing, he "did not fully acknowledge her accomplishments or prior industry experience as he did for male colleagues" during the event.
Then came a project dispute. The complaint alleges a male colleague accused the worker of failing to perform, and AWS pulled her from the project before any real investigation. The worker says she independently gathered emails and documents proving the accusation was false. According to the filing, the company "took no meaningful corrective action."
In early 2023, the worker filed an internal ethics complaint reporting that her supervisor "treated her differently from her male colleagues by imposing more burdensome standards and different processes" because she is a woman. After multiple follow-ups, an HR manager agreed the supervisor "was too focused on" the worker and that she should be reassigned, the filing states.
That did not happen cleanly. The complaint alleges the supervisor told her he would stay on as her manager "until her performance met expectations" and that they would "resolve their conflict without additional assistance." She was eventually moved to a new manager around March or April 2023.
The workload did not let up. Under her new manager, the complaint alleges the worker's utilization rate jumped from roughly 55 percent to about 85 percent, she was expected to respond to messages around the clock, and after AWS let go of other employees in April 2023, she picked up their reassigned work - regularly pulling 12-hour days until 9:30 at night.
By February 2024, the complaint states, the worker had a panic attack at work and another during a follow-up medical appointment. Her doctor advised she could not return. She was diagnosed with anxiety and depression, which the filing says was "severely exacerbated" by what she experienced at AWS. The company approved her for short-term and then long-term disability leave.
She came back in March 2025 and AWS's accommodations team approved her to work remotely. By September 2025, her approved setup included one in-person day per week at an office about 10 miles from home, two days of intermittent leave per week, multiple daily breaks, and a wellness coach. The complaint notes the teams she worked with were based in Boston and Ohio - meaning, the filing alleges, she could have done the job remotely full-time.
That changed fast.
On or about December 1, 2025, a Delivery Practice Lead emailed the worker to say intermittent leave was "no longer approved" and she was expected at the BWI24 office for a full 40-hour week. The worker responded that without her accommodations, she would need to go back on disability leave. According to the complaint, the manager did not reply.
She has been on disability leave since - first short-term, then long-term after those benefits ran out.
The complaint also targets how AWS handled money during the worker's leave.
According to the filing, she was eligible for a quarterly incentive AWS calls the "Mission Bonus" or "Security Clearance Bonus," worth approximately $15,000 per quarter. A manager told her she was no longer eligible, citing a new policy. The worker checked the policy herself, contacted the administering team, and was told the decision sat with her manager. She escalated to HR, which the complaint states "confirmed that she remained eligible under the existing policy." AWS ultimately paid up.
Roughly two months later, the complaint alleges, AWS rolled out a revised policy providing that employees on leave for more than six months would no longer qualify. No such policy existed when the bonus was first denied.
There is also an equity allegation. According to the complaint, the worker's stock was set to vest in 2025 per her offer letter and brokerage account, but after AWS learned she was interested in filing a discrimination charge, "the expected vesting year had been changed to 2029." By February 2026, the filing states, she had been locked out of company systems including her work email and leave portal.
The worker filed an EEOC charge in October 2024 and an amended charge in March 2026 adding disability claims. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice on August 13, 2026.
The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, back pay, front pay, the value of the withheld bonus and equity that would have vested, restoration of accommodations, and attorneys' fees. A jury trial is demanded on all triable issues.
For HR teams juggling return-to-office mandates alongside live disability accommodations, the sequence alleged here - approve, revoke, force leave - is exactly the kind of pattern that draws ADA complaints.
None of the allegations have been tested, and no court has made any findings or rulings on the merits.
