Her new lifting limit was less restrictive than the one Amazon had already honored
Amazon accommodated a warehouse worker's disabilities for years - then allegedly fired her when they became permanent.
The worker had been a fulfillment associate at Amazon's North Haven, Connecticut facility - known internally as BDL3 - for more than four years. According to a complaint filed on November 5, 2026, in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut, she has chronic lower back and right knee impairments, including sciatica, degenerative spine disease, and a Baker's cyst.
None of that was new to Amazon.
The complaint alleges that from 2020 onward, the company's Disability and Leave Services team approved a string of workplace adjustments based on her medical records. Her shifts were shortened. Her lifting was capped at ten pounds. Support staff - known in Amazon's system as "waterspiders" - were sent to handle heavier items. She was placed at stations she could work, including packing and stow positions.
She did the job. The filing states that Amazon admitted to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) that it approved each of those adjustments, and that it did so because positions matching her restrictions were available.
That arrangement held for more than three years.
In March 2024, according to the complaint, the worker went on medical leave for her back and knee conditions. She underwent emergency care, imaging, a fluid drainage procedure, physical therapy, and orthopedic treatment over the following months. Amazon approved the leave and extended it into January 2025.
On November 7, 2024, the filing alleges, she asked to come back. Her medical provider submitted paperwork setting out her restrictions: a lifting limit of fifteen to twenty pounds, limits on continuous standing, bending and squatting, and rest breaks.
That lifting limit was actually less restrictive than the ten-pound cap Amazon had honored before.
The complaint alleges that through November and December 2024, the worker repeatedly asked Amazon to let her return - with lifting limits backed by support staff, breaks during prolonged standing, or reassignment to an open position. According to the filing, Amazon never sat down with her. It did not ask what tasks she could handle, propose an alternative, offer a trial run, or tell her what positions it had considered.
Amazon later told the CHRO, the complaint states, that BDL3 had no open role within her restrictions because the roles that fit "were at capacity," and that accommodating her "would have required Amazon to create a new role." But the filing alleges Amazon had never needed to create a new role for her before. For years, it had placed her in existing positions with existing support staff.
Then came the point the complaint hinges on. According to the filing, Amazon also told the CHRO that it treated the November 2024 request differently because her restrictions were "indefinite." The complaint frames that plainly: because her disability was permanent, Amazon would no longer accommodate it.
On January 7, 2025, Amazon fired her. A letter dated January 8, 2025, the complaint states, "confirm[ed] that the date of involuntary termination of your employment with Amazon.com Services LLC is 01/07/2025."
The complaint brings four claims. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it alleges Amazon discriminated against her by firing her because of her disability, refused to provide reasonable accommodation, and retaliated against her for requesting it. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), it alleges Amazon held her protected medical leave against her when deciding to terminate.
The filing alleges Amazon acted with "malice or with reckless indifference" to the worker's rights, and that the company's own written policy promises employees "a robust, good faith interactive dialogue to help identify and implement reasonable accommodation."
At the time of termination, the complaint states the worker earned $22.40 per hour. She is seeking reinstatement or front pay, back pay and lost benefits, compensatory damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.
The worker filed a dual complaint with the CHRO and the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on October 29, 2025. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice on August 7, 2026.
For HR teams managing return-to-work requests, the case raises a pointed question: if you have been accommodating someone's restrictions for years, what changes when those restrictions become permanent - and can pulling the accommodation withstand scrutiny?
The allegations in this complaint have not been tested, and no court has made any findings or rulings on the merits.
