Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
IT

Amazon's Return-to-Office Mandate Sparks Complaints from Disabled Employees (yahoo.com) 51

Posted by EditorDavid from the boxes-with-smiles dept.
An anonymous reader shared this report from Bloomberg: Amazon's hard-line stance on getting disabled employees to return to the office has sparked a backlash, with workers alleging the company is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as their rights to collectively bargain. At least two Amazon employees have filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board, federal agencies that regulate working conditions. One of the workers said they provided the EEOC with a list of 18 "similarly situated" employees to emphasize that their experience isn't isolated and to help federal regulators with a possible investigation.

Disabled workers frustrated with how Amazon is handling their requests for accommodations — including exemptions to a mandate that they report to the office five days a week — are also venting their displeasure on internal chat rooms and have encouraged colleagues to answer surveys about the policies. Amazon has been deleting such posts and warning that they violate rules governing internal communications. One employee said they were terminated and another said they were told to find a different position after advocating for disabled workers on employee message boards. Both filed complaints with the EEOC and NLRB.
Amazon has told employees with disabilities they must now submit to a "multilevel leader review," Bloomberg reported in October, "and could be required to return to the office for monthlong trials to determine if accommodations meet their needs." (They received calls from "accommodation consultants" who also reviewed medical documentation, after which "another Amazon manager must sign off. If they don't, the request goes to a third manager...")

Bloomberg's new article remembers how several employees told them in November. "that they believed the system was designed to deny work-from-home accommodations and prompt employees with disabilities to quit, which some have done. Amazon denied the system was designed to encourage people to resign." Since then, workers have mobilized against the policy. One employee repeatedly posted an online survey seeking colleagues' reactions, defying the company's demands to stop. The survey ultimately generated feedback from more than 200 workers even though Amazon kept deleting it, and the results reflected strong opposition to Amazon's treatment of disabled workers. More than 71% of disabled Amazon employees surveyed said the company had denied or failed to meet most of their accommodation requests, while half indicated they faced "hostile" work environments after disclosing their disabilities and requesting accommodations.

One respondent said they sought permission to work from home after suffering multiple strokes that prevented them from driving. Amazon suggested moving closer to the office and taking mass transit, the person said in the survey. Another respondent said they couldn't drive for longer than 15-minute intervals due to chronic pain. Amazon's recommendation was to pull over and stretch during their commute, which the employee said was unsafe since they drive on a busy freeway... Amazon didn't dispute the accounts and said it considered a range of solutions to disability accommodations, including changes to an employee's commute.
Amazon is also "using AI to parse accommodation requests, read doctors' notes and make recommendations based on keywords," according to the article — another policy that's also generated internal opposition (and formed a "key element" of the complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).

"The dispute could affect thousands of Amazon workers. An internal Slack channel for employees with disabilities has 13,000 members, one of the people said..."

Amazon's Return-to-Office Mandate Sparks Complaints from Disabled Employees More | Reply

Amazon's Return-to-Office Mandate Sparks Complaints from Disabled Employees

Comments Filter:

    • Re: Disabled people didn't exist before 2020 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by klipclop ( 6724090 ) on Sunday June 15, 2025 @09:45PM (#65451805)
      It's an interesting argument, and I wish them luck . But If Amazon's offices are all wheelchair accessible, I don't think disabled employees have a good chance in getting a return to the office exemption.

      • Re: Disabled people didn't exist before 2020 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by tttesty ( 8774457 ) on Sunday June 15, 2025 @09:48PM (#65451811)
        What if the disability doesn't involve the use of a wheelchair? Vision impairment, Learning disabilities, Physical disability, Autism, Traumatic brain injury, Hearing Impairments, ADHD, Intellectual disability, Epilepsy?

        • Stubbed toe. Stuffy nose. Dirty neck.

        • Back in the 90s I worked at a JC Penney catalog call center. There was a woman who was in a motorized wheelchair who was blind. They equipped her with a screen reader and she was a great employee. I think if this lady could manage to get to work then most folks whining can probably do so as well. I like working from home as much as the next guy, but this isn't the correct way to do it.

          • You can't compare all disabilities with her. Not everyone has a huge support network. Often visible disabilities get good Samaritan support, often immediately whilst chronic pain etc gets close to zero support.

      • If they were able to work in the office prior then they have no excuses.

    • That doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Sunday June 15, 2025 @09:54PM (#65451823) Homepage Journal

      We all know that working from the office was once the norm. That fact by itself tells us nothing about how much the workers liked it. Nor is it relevant to the modern day which includes excellent technological solutions for remote work and widespread evidence that it does not harm productivity.

      So, the suffering that some people face, today, in dealing with a work-from-office mandate are not in any way addressed by saying "well people used to have to work from the office regardless." We don't live in the past, and the tribulations of the past aren't relevant to the present.

      Of course, I don't expect Amazon to show any compassion. Why would they? They succeed, in part, by exploiting workers, so they don't care if there is some suffering involved. They believe (right or wrong doesn't matter) that their bottom line benefits from this policy, so they will push it. Workers who don't like it can push back if they choose, risks and all.

      Personally, I approve of worker pushback and wish we had more of it, because power is not in balance and being a worker sucks in general.

      • Well, Amazon apparently doesn't care according to these legal cases filed with the EEOC and NLRB. HR will just retaliate against the employees that complained in order to save the company. The policies will stay until the next management shakeup. Even if Amazon gets fined $10M, that's chump change. They can raise the price of Prime to offset whatever lawsuits, and have consumers pay instead.

        • 10M at Amazon scale for a few hundred people is nothing. The whole matter is a giant threat to all the others to show what happens if you don't do as asked.

          Back to office orno job for you.

        • I guess you are an Amazon employee that has to pee in a plastic bottle cuz your boss won't let you disappear for the afternoon in the rest room ... or wherever you vape the stuff that makes you a whiny lazy useless POS.

      • We all know that working from the office was once the norm. That fact by itself tells us nothing about how much the workers liked it. Nor is it relevant to the modern day which includes excellent technological solutions for remote work and widespread evidence that it does not harm productivity.

        There is a difference between a liked or preferred solution and an alternative workable solution. The ADA doesn't necessarily allow a preferred choice among workable solutions, just that accommodations be made.

        This separate issue concerning whether current technology facilitates additional solutions is a worthwhile discussion but is still different from the legal question surrounding the ADA.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I saw a lot of posts in 2020 on from disabled people saying something along the lines of "COVID proved disability accommodations were always possible, just no one cared.". These people don't freshly need these accommodations; they just have recent proof that Amazon's claims they can't be provided are bullshit.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They may have joined after 2020. It's been more than 5 years since the pandemic started. They may also have become disabled since then. People get injured, conditions worsen.

  • Funny (Score:1, Interesting)

    by registrations_suck ( 1075251 )

    Funny how all these disabled people worked in the office just fine before.

    FYI, before you hate on me, I am a disabled person.

    • How do you know that ALL of them worked in the office?
    • I suppose disabilities come in all forms. Physical, intellectual... My guess is that physically disabled people's commute times are longer. So WFH allowed them more comfort and freedom as well as free time not having to commute. If some people also moved further away, a longer commute time would also not be very fun... (Even non disabled employees are unhappy)...

    • Re:Funny (Score:5, Interesting)

      by erice ( 13380 ) on Sunday June 15, 2025 @10:45PM (#65451903) Homepage

      Funny how all these disabled people worked in the office just fine before.

      FYI, before you hate on me, I am a disabled person.

      Actually, the ratio of disabled people in the workplace increased during the pandemic and then levelled out when RTO mandates began. It's almost as if disabled people had more trouble getting and holding jobs when they had to come to the office every day.

      https://www.bls.gov/news.relea... [bls.gov]

      My experience as an unemployed person who is that officially disabled but encumbered by a heavy health management load is that companies with RTO mandates don't care about candidates health issues and likely believe that ADA doesn't require them to. And they are likely right about the latter.

    • Funny how all these disabled people worked in the office just fine before.

      FYI, before you hate on me, I am a disabled person.

      Whether you are disabled or not is not really the question. There are many types of disablement (and yours may not be same as the claimants). But while "reasonable accommodation" is required, remote work has never been adjudicated as a necessary and reasonable accommodation, making this claim somewhat of a long shot. But it does deserve to have it's day in court to clarify the requirements.

    • As a disabled person I absolutely agree with you

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by allo ( 1728082 )

      Maybe they did not? It have been 5 years, don't you think some got hired during these years?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khchung ( 462899 )

      Funny how all these disabled people worked in the office just fine before.

      Slavery and child labor "worked just fine" before, too.

      The fact is "just fine" isn't really fine for many disabled people, and years of working remotely proved that remote work is feasible and practical.

      Funny how all these remote workers worked just fine before, until the PHBs called for everyone to return to office, then somehow remote working isn't fine anymore. While at the same time, outsource to India is still fine for the same PHBs. You cannot get more blatantly double standard than this, unless all

  • The EEOC and NLRB were impotent prior to Jan. 2025 and are even worse now (the NLRB can't even rule because they lack a quorum).

    Amazon is following the letter of the law, which means they can grind this down until people quit. Accommodation is suppose to be a "good faith" effort between employer and employee. It seems neither is approaching this in that spirit.

  • Reports depicting the grueling work conditions in Amazon warehouses, especially during seasonal sales, have continually dogged Amazon. Workers report long hours, timed bathroom breaks, surveillance of work productivity/speed, intense isolation from others, physically demanding quotas, and other difficult conditions to work under. These working conditions take a physical and mental toll on the workers, who are often treated more as a data set or a robot than as humans. Amazon’s troubling labor abuses

    • Reports depicting the grueling work conditions in Amazon warehouses, especially during seasonal sales, have continually dogged Amazon. Workers report long hours, timed bathroom breaks, surveillance of work productivity/speed, intense isolation from others, physically demanding quotas, and other difficult conditions to work under. These working conditions take a physical and mental toll on the workers, who are often treated more as a data set or a robot than as humans. Amazon’s troubling labor abuses

    • Reports depicting the grueling work conditions in Amazon warehouses=

      None of those issues are part of this particular complaint (they may be part of a different complaint in some other jurisdictional forum). In practice, while "reasonable accommodation" is required, most warehouse jobs are not going to be viable for those with certain disabilities, and no industry are likely required to make such accommodations (just like airlines are not required to hire pilots who cannot see).

      • 'ttesty' likes to hear/see themself whine on /. Talk about somebody with a "personal vanity" issue. Like a person that posts a Google comment on a Google Map pin for a hospital asking for a medical diagnosis of their "condition" or where the nearest cheep hotel is located relative to the hospital.

  • I quite liked the days when, generally speaking, guidelines outnumbered rules, and the whole employee-company relationship was less brittle.

    I understand that clear rules with clear consequences avoid misunderstandings. But this is more necessary with children than it is between gentlemen, as it were. What's changed...?

  • Is a career hellscape for anyone. Most of the people I've talked to who work there say, oh I'm just writing here until I achieve X and then move on. As far as I know you are part of a big corporate machine that cares nothing for individuals.

  • Isn't it obvious enough yet?

  • If you can't handle returning to office and a company is pushing, you still have to work with terms of employment or else.

Slashdot Top Deals

The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.

Close