Accommodations Fail: How Lack of a Sign Language Interpreter Led to EEOC Filing Discrimination Charges Against Amazon
Introduction
Another day, another multi-billion dollar company fired an employee instead of providing a sign language interpreter. The EEOC takes a specific interest in discrimination against employees with hearing loss, which is the most common disability in the workplace. In 2023, the EEOC published very detailed guidance on how companies that fall under the ADA should handle accommodation requests related to hearing loss, likely because hearing loss is the number one disability represented in EEOC complaints. Despite this inclusion cookbook, time and again organizations fail to accommodate their employees with hearing loss in a legal manner. Sometimes these companies are terrible at inclusion in general, occasionally they are large companies with good reputations that have a large but isolated area where the corporate rules just aren’t being followed. This time, the offending company is Amazon, which is often praised for its inclusion and accessibility efforts. This case shows that even big companies with good reputations for incluion can make illegal decisions that harm their employees.
When discussing the failure to provide accommodations, we often talk about the employer’s failure to follow what the EEOC calls the "interactive process." But here, that term doesn't capture how badly Amazon failed. This wasn't just a small mistake, but a massive breakdown at several different levels of the organization. Here’s a detailed look at what went wrong. This article is based on the facts of this case. TL;DR: an employee receiving accommodations for hearing loss at one location was fired after transferring to a second location where the accommodations were not retained.
Mistake 1: 📝 Onboarding Failure
The first mistake happened during the employee's transfer from one Amazon facility to another. At her original location, she had sign language support. However, the team handling her transfer didn’t ensure she would have the same support at the new location.
Talent acquisition should ensure that necessary accommodations move with the employee. Employees don’t magically get cured just because they work in a new environment. The onboarding/transfer staff failed the employee by neglecting to do this. This isn't just an administrative error; it’s a breach of trust and duty.
Mistake 2: 📋 New Manager Neglect
The second mistake was made by the new manager. When the employee arrived at the new facility, the manager didn’t follow up on her accommodation request. Managers must uphold company policies and support their team. This manager’s failure to prioritize a disabled employee's needs by transferring already approved is the textbook definition of neglect.
When managers ignore accommodation requests, they signal that these needs aren't important. This lack of action makes the employee feel unsupported and undervalued. Managers must understand that acting on these requests is essential.
Mistake 3: 🏥 Improper use of Medical Leave
HR worsened the situation by putting the employee on involuntary medical leave instead of addressing her accommodation request. There are very few situations where involuntary medical leave is appropriate, and this wasn’t one of them. Instead of providing the needed support, HR sidelined the employee, punishing her for asking to continue the accommodations she had in her previous location.
This showed a deep misunderstanding of disability rights and a disregard for the employee’s well-being. It wasn’t just an illegal procedural mistake but a moral and ethical failure.
Mistake 4: ❎ Improper Termination
HR then took an even worse step: they fired the employee without resolving her accommodation request. This wasn’t just insensitive; it was illegal. This action reveals a systemic issue in Amazon’s HR practices at this location, where disability rights seem to be non-existent. It shows how a lack of understanding and empathy can lead to serious legal and ethical violations. Firing employees without addressing open accommodations requests likely violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Even firing employees soon after denied accommodations requests makes it look like the company is retaliating against the employee for making the request. A case of retaliation can be substantiated even when the underlying complaint of discrimination is not. Retaliation is on the rise, as there are now more retaliation complaints being filed with the EEOC than discrimination cases.
Mistake 5: 📑 Legal Department Oversight
The legal department failed to settle the matter quickly, which resulted in the employee escalating her complaint to the EEOC. The legal team’s job is to mitigate risk and ensure legal compliance. They caused additional reputational damage and financial loss for Amazon by not promptly recognizing the employee’s forced leave and termination would lead to litigation that would be both public and likely resolved in favor of the employee. A swift and adequate response by the legal team could have prevented EEOC involvement and shown a commitment to fixing mistakes. Instead, this oversight highlights a lack of proactive engagement.
Mistake 6: 🚨 Lack of Psychological Safety
The new Amazon facility’s culture didn’t encourage employees to voice concerns or escalate issues. Psychological safety is key for a productive and inclusive workplace. It lets employees speak up without fear of retribution. Without a psychologically safe environment, the employee’s struggles went unnoticed, making the problem worse. Creating a culture where employees feel safe and supported in raising concerns is crucial to prevent such failures.
Mistake 7: 🔁 Lack of Corporate Oversight
Amazon's corporate office failed to ensure that all facilities applied the same accommodation practices in an consistent manner, contributing to the employee's unjust termination. Without proper oversight, individual locations can handle identical accommodation requests differently, leading to different results and significant gaps in support for the employees with disabilities who received inferior accommodations. This lack of uniformity allowed the new facility to neglect the employee’s needs, ultimately resulting in her firing.
Amazon’s failure to train and hold managers and HR departments accountable for accommodation processes reflects a systemic issue within the company's structure. Ensuring a consistent approach across all locations is crucial for compliance with disability rights and inclusion standards. This case underscores the need for robust corporate policies and regular audits to guarantee that all employees receive necessary support and accommodations, no matter where they work.
This is where analytics can really help identify the hot spots that need better review. When multi-site companies know that 2 % of their employees in one location ask for accommodations, but only .5% do the same in a different location, there is a problem that needs to be investigated.
Financial and Ethical Implications
I estimate these mistakes will cost Amazon at least $200,000 in legal fees, settlement costs, and ongoing monitoring by the EEOC. A professional skilled in disability inclusion could have solved this issue for less than 1/2 of 1% of that amount. While Amazon can absorb this penalty, many smaller employers cannot.
For smaller employers, such mistakes could be catastrophic. They might not have the resources to handle legal battles and settlements. Therefore, all companies must invest in creating an inclusive and supportive environment for their employees.
Ensuring that all employees feel safe and supported and that accommodation requests are taken seriously is not just a legal duty but a moral one. Employees shouldn’t fear for their jobs or feel undervalued because they need accommodations.
Conclusion
Inclusion and accessibility are not optional; they are essential for an equitable workplace that follows laws concerning the treatment of disabled employees. Companies must prioritize these values and take steps to support all employees, especially those with disabilities. By doing so, they comply with legal standards and foster a culture of respect and equality.
This case is a stark reminder of the importance of vigilance and accountability in ensuring workplace equality. It’s a call to action for companies to reevaluate their practices, train their staff, and create a culture where all employees feel valued and supported.
Special thanks to Linda Spiller for highlighting this egregious case. This incident is a powerful example of why we must continue to advocate for accessibility and inclusion in the workplace.