Amazon faces a class action lawsuit filed Wednesday in Manhattan federal court, accused of subjecting thousands of warehouse employees with disabilities to a punitive absence policy that threatens their jobs when they seek workplace accommodations. The Seattle-based retailer, America’s largest private-sector employer behind Walmart, allegedly docks unpaid time off from New York workers ordered to stay home while their disability requests undergo review, then threatens to fire them for missing too much work.
The lawsuit, led by Cayla Lyster, a warehouse worker near Syracuse, New York, exposes what legal advocates call a systematic violation of legal rights. Lyster, who has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome—a connective-tissue disorder—said Amazon repeatedly placed her on unpaid leave, once for nearly six weeks, while supervisors reviewed her requests for basic accommodations like a chair to sit on and not having to climb ladders.
During this period, supervisors berated her for seeking help. She described feeling trapped between following company orders and keeping her job. The experience left her wondering how many other employees face similar treatment when they simply request reasonable accommodation for medical conditions. “Amazon’s practices chill employees’ exercise of their legal rights, because employees justifiably fear they too will be disciplined and fired if they request reasonable accommodation,” the complaint filed in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York states. The retailer offered no immediate comment on the allegations.
Amazon allegedly sends intimidating emails to workers caught in what the lawsuit describes as a “punitive absence control system.” Employees who incur unpaid leave—even when the law allows it—receive emails demanding they justify their absences within 48 hours or risk being fired. These messages arrive without warning, often while workers wait for their accommodation requests to be reviewed. The pressure builds quickly. You either respond fast or face termination.
The case, Lyster v Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 25-09423, reveals how Amazon’s absence control system subjects employees to disciplinary action precisely when they’re seeking protection under disability law. When Amazon orders employees seeking accommodations to stay home, it simultaneously docks their time off, creating a paradox where following company orders leads to termination threats. Workers describe feeling threatened by a system that denies them basic protections. These intimidating messages “intimidate and threaten employees who have exercised their rights,” Lyster explained in court documents.
The proposed class action seeks damages for all hourly warehouse workers in New York state over the last three years who sought, or intended to seek, accommodations for their disabilities. This could affect thousands of employees across Amazon’s extensive warehouse network throughout the state. Legal experts note the retailer’s size makes the alleged policy particularly impactful since it’s governing workplace conditions for hundreds of thousands nationwide.
Many workers never file requests because they watch what happens to colleagues. The fear becomes contagious. People see others placed on unpaid status and decide staying silent beats risking their income. “Workers shouldn’t ever need to choose between their safety and their paycheck,” said Inimai Chettiar, president of A Better Balance, a workplace legal advocacy group that helped file the lawsuit. The organization has tracked similar patterns at other large employers but says Amazon’s approach stands out for how systematically it allegedly denies workers their rights during the accommodation process.
The lawsuit was filed three weeks after New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin sued Amazon, saying it often denies reasonable accommodation requests and repeatedly puts pregnant workers and workers with disabilities on unpaid leave. Platkin’s legal action last month in New Jersey suggests a broader pattern across Amazon’s operations affecting both pregnant workers and those with disabilities. The timing raises questions about whether this reflects company-wide practices rather than isolated incidents.
Amazon denied Platkin’s claims, stating it approves more than 99% of requests for pregnancy-related accommodations. But the New York lawsuit challenges whether approval statistics tell the whole story. What happens during those weeks of review? How many employees abandon their requests after being placed on unpaid status? The complaint argues these approval numbers mask the reality workers face when they actually try to exercise their legal rights. Being accused of having good approval rates means little if employees get disciplined while waiting for those approvals.
Amazon, the largest U.S. private-sector employer, now confronts legal challenges in multiple jurisdictions over how it handles disability and pregnancy accommodations. The Manhattan federal court case specifically targets the company’s practice of creating what advocates call a punitive environment that chills employees’ willingness to exercise their legal rights. Court documents reveal supervisors berated workers like Lyster during the accommodation process, adding psychological pressure to financial strain.
The complaint argues Amazon’s policy violates disability protection laws by disciplining employees for absences that result from the company’s own orders. When Amazon tells employees to stay home during accommodation reviews, then counts that time off against them under its absence control system, it creates what legal experts call an impossible situation. You can’t win either way. Stay and work without accommodations? Risk injury. Go home as ordered? Risk your job.
The lawsuit contends this practice effectively denies workers their right to seek reasonable accommodation without fear of termination. Employees watch the clock knowing they have limited time before Amazon’s system triggers automatic discipline. The 48 hours deadline to justify absences feels particularly harsh when workers may still be waiting to hear back about their original accommodation requests. Some have waited weeks—like Lyster’s six weeks—while their requests sit under review. During that entire period, they’re not earning money and they’re incurring points against them in the absence control system.
