The following article was first published on Shipman & Goodwin attorney Dan Schwartz’ Connecticut Employment Law Blog. It is reposted here with permission.
A new decision out of the District of Connecticut is a timely reminder for employers that clear, consistently applied attendance policies can carry the day—even when a supervisor has made awkward comments that later become part of the lawsuit.
In Ward v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Judge Victor Bolden granted summary judgment to Amazon on a former employee’s Title VII claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, ending the federal case on May 22, 2026.
The court held that the undisputed record showed the plaintiff was terminated for violating Amazon’s attendance rules by carrying a negative “unpaid time” balance, not for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.
The case involved an onsite medical representative who transferred to Amazon’s Windsor facility.
He alleged that two safety managers asked him multiple times whether he was dating a co-worker and twice asked about his chosen pronouns.
He also conceded he missed scheduled shifts and carried a negative balance under Amazon’s unpaid time policy.
Centralized HR decision-makers—rather than the supervisors who asked the questions—terminated his employment after multiple written notices about his negative balance.
Notably, one of those supervisors recommended a final written warning instead of termination, and Amazon later fired...
Highlights Rebel Wilson has prevailed in a defamation lawsuit brought by actress Charlotte MacInnes. The dispute stemmed from Wilson's social media posts alleging inappropriate behaviour by Ma...