CHICAGO (LN) — U.S. District Judge Georgia N. Alexakis ruled Tuesday that Antonio Vance, a former fulfillment associate, could not establish a failure-to-accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act because he rejected Amazon’s offer of custom shoes and ignored requests for medical records.
Vance, who worked for Amazon from October 2017 until his termination in July 2023, sued after the company fired him for job abandonment. He alleged that Amazon violated the ADA and the Illinois Human Rights Act by failing to accommodate his foot injury, which left him unable to wear shoes with non-flexible toes, and by subjecting him to a hostile work environment.
The dispute centered on Amazon’s “Mind Your Step” safety shoe program, instituted in April 2022, which required employees to wear steel-toe, composite, or slip-on protective footwear. Vance testified that he was granted an informal accommodation in April 2022 allowing him to wear his own shoes, but later requested a formal exemption in August 2022.
Alexakis found that Vance’s April 2022 request did not support a claim because he had already received the accommodation he sought. The judge noted that Vance testified he was able to wear his own shoes from April 2022 through September 2022, despite repeated warnings from safety team members about his non-compliance.
Regarding the September 2022 request, Alexakis ruled that Amazon acted reasonably by placing Vance on paid leave while engaging in the interactive process. The company offered custom-shoe fittings, which Vance never pursued.
“A reasonable jury would thus be forced to conclude that Vance caused a breakdown in the interactive process by rejecting custom shoes as an alternative accommodation,” Alexakis wrote.
The judge also rejected Vance’s disparate-treatment and retaliation claims. Amazon terminated Vance for job abandonment after he failed to return to work when his approved leave ended and failed to provide supporting medical documentation requested 5 times.
Vance argued that he was treated differently than non-disabled employees, citing testimony that a non-disabled employee named Bruce was not reprimanded for a policy violation while Vance was. However, Alexakis noted that Vance presented no evidence that the same decisionmaker made the adverse employment actions, preventing any inference of pretext.
On the hostile work environment claim, Alexakis acknowledged that a safety team member called Vance a “motherfucker” during a tense exchange about his footwear. However, the judge ruled that this single incident, spread over six months, was not severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms of Vance’s employment.
“Hostility and disrespectfulness weren’t enough in Abrego, and this incident is not enough here,” Alexakis wrote, citing Seventh Circuit precedent.
Vance’s suit, filed in state court in October 2023 and removed to federal court in February 2024, is now closed.