Amazon Music can't sink a Black former worker's suit alleging her responsibilities were reduced and she was placed on a performance improvement plan for complaining about her manager, a New York federal judge said, ruling her claims are viable based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.

A former Amazon Music employee said a manager discriminated against her by excluding her from meetings, rejecting her ideas and limiting her responsibility for a new hire she'd expected to oversee. (AP Photo/Michael Sohn)

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian partially denied Amazon.com Inc.'s motion to dismiss the discrimination and retaliation suit brought by Keesha Anderson, a former Amazon Music employee, under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act and New York state and local laws.

Judge Subramanian noted that when Amazon asked to toss the case in January, Second Circuit case law held that a worker alleging discrimination had to allege they'd suffered a "materially adverse change" to their employment, but the high court in April changed the landscape. In Muldrow v. St. Louis, the justices held that employees only need to show they faced "some injury" from a job transfer, rather than "significant" harm, to bring a discrimination suit under Title VII, and Judge Subramanian said this logic extends to Section 1981.

"Under this standard, Anderson has plausibly alleged that the PIP and her diminished role were adverse actions," Judge Subramanian wrote. "These actions adversely affected Anderson's benefits, privileges, terms, or conditions of employment by saddling her with more and worse tasks, tarnishing her permanent record, dampening her prospects of a promotion or raise, temporarily preventing her from transferring, excluding her from certain meetings and projects, and so on."

The judge said Anderson's PIP could also support her retaliation claim because it's possible that being put on the plan would discourage a reasonable worker from complaining about discrimination.

However, Judge Subramanian tossed Anderson's claims of a hostile work environment and constructive discharge, concluding that diminished responsibilities and occasionally unsupportive, rude or demanding bosses weren't enough to sustain the allegations.

Anderson filed suit against Amazon and two Amazon Music executives in September. Judge Subramanian dismissed the executives from the suit Friday, saying Anderson failed to demonstrate that the court had jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendants.

According to her complaint, Anderson was hired in August 2019 to help market Amazon Music's live events, and for the first four months, her manager discriminated against her by excluding her from meetings, rejecting her ideas and limiting her responsibility for a new hire she'd expected to oversee. Anderson said she complained multiple times to human resources and Amazon Music executives and was eventually given a new supervisor, but in March 2020, her budget was slashed and she was forced to work under other Black employees as part of a scheme to push her out.

Anderson claimed that over the next several months, she continued to be excluded from meetings, her work was limited to administrative tasks and she was asked to help a white employee on a project even though he was a lower-ranked worker. In September 2020, Anderson was placed on a PIP with unrealistic deadlines based on minor infractions, but six weeks later, the plan was suddenly rescinded, according to the complaint.

In April 2021, an anonymous colleague told Anderson there was a scheme to get rid of her because she'd been labeled a problem employee after complaining about her former manager, Anderson said. According to the complaint, Anderson wasn't sure who to trust, and shortly after she was told she'd be getting another new manager, Anderson spoke to the anonymous colleague again and decided to resign in January 2022.

Amazon had argued the court should ignore the supposed whistleblower's account because it's hearsay. Judge Subramanian also said he was skeptical that an anonymous insider randomly confirmed Anderson's suspicions of a conspiracy to oust her, particularly because her bosses allegedly tried to get her to stay.

"However, the identity of and statements made by the alleged whistleblower will be subjects of discovery," Judge Subramanian wrote. "And as this case continues, the court expects counsel for both sides to strictly adhere to their obligations to ensure that the parties' factual contentions have (or will have) evidentiary support."

Jessie Djata, who is representing Anderson, told Law360 that the former Amazon employee "is not the first woman of color to be the victim of discrimination laundering, nor will she be the last."

"Her decision to file a lawsuit against one of the largest companies in the world was not an easy one; it took a great deal of courage," Djata said. "We are at the beginning of a long and arduous battle, but we believe in the judicial process and intend to fight vigorously to ensure Ms. Anderson achieves a just outcome."