Corporate Counsel Daily, Chilean man with MBA from Columbia gets trial on claims against AWS, (Mar 25, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The Amazon Web Services supervisor who fired him allegedly told him he had “skill gaps in writing and communication” and asked if he had “thought about returning to Latin America.”

A former employee of Chilean origin who has an MBA from Columbia University, fired by an Amazon Web Services supervisor who observed that "being argumentative is part of your culture" and made comments about the employee’s accent being too difficult to understand, may proceed to trial on his NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination and retaliation claims against AWS and the supervisor, a federal district court found. The former employee offered evidence that the supervisor asked HR whether he could bypass the normal performance improvement procedure to fire the employee, and that inconsistent and shifting explanations were offered to justify the termination. There was also evidence that the PIP decision was made either prematurely or in close proximity to the employee’s protected complaints about the supervisor to HR (Breitling v. Amazon Web Services, No. 24-cv-4704 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2026)).

AWS employee. The plaintiff, according to the court, was employed continuously by Amazon Web Services (AWS) from at least September 19, 2022, until he was discharged by his supervisor on June 28, 2024.

MBA from Columbia, research in Paris. The employee had moved to New York in 1978, graduated from Harpur College at Binghamton University in 1981, and earned his MBA from Columbia University in 1987. And he has lived in the U.S. continuously since 1978, with the exception of one year in 1983, when he lived in Paris and was conducting neurological research at the French Academy of Sciences.

“English that is good enough…” “A trier of fact,” the federal district court observed, “could fairly infer that [he] speaks and writes impeccable English - or at least English that is good enough to warrant employment at Amazon.”

Supervisor’s discriminatory comments. His supervisor, however, allegedly held another opinion. The former employee offered evidence that the supervisor made a series of discriminatory comments during the period while he was evaluating his performance. These included comments about the employee’s accent being too difficult for the supervisor to understand and that "being argumentative is part of your culture."

“[S]kill gaps.” Additionally, during a meeting on February 21, 2024, the supervisor allegedly told him, “The problem, [plaintiff], is that English is not your first language. You have skill gaps in writing and communication. The writing course didn't help. Have you thought about returning to Latin America?”

“American woman.” The former employee also offered evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated peers outside his protected class, according to the court. One identified comparator, “an American woman,” served as an L 7 GTM specialist on the same team, reported to the same supervisor, and was subject to the same performance evaluation and discipline standards. Despite being placed on "Focus," a first-level performance improvement plan (PIP) at AWS, for similar reasons as the plaintiff was—including the quality of her "Amazon Writing"—she was not required to take an "Amazon Writing" course, which the supervisor required of the plaintiff.

“American male.” He also offered evidence that another colleague, “an American male,” was installed as "cohead" of GTM Banking while the plaintiff’s own responsibilities were shrinking. This alleged comparator was ultimately promoted to Head of GTM upon the plaintiff’s departure and the supervisor’s promotion.

HR complaints about supervisor. Finally, the court observed that the employee made two complaints to HR about the supervisor’s conduct. On January 31, 2024, he filed his first HR complaint against the supervisor, alleging a hostile work environment, contradictory instructions, and demeaning treatment. Although his written complaint did not explicitly use the phrase "national origin discrimination," he testified that he told an HR representative about the supervisor’s comments concerning his accent and language skills “during a Chime meeting about the complaint,” according to the court.

On March 23, 2024, he filed a second HR complaint explicitly alleging national origin discrimination and detailing the supervisor’s discriminatory comments from the February 21, 2024, meeting. He followed up with a formal ethics violation report, reiterating his discrimination complaint and challenging his PIP placement. “These complaints are undoubtedly protected activity,” concluded the court.

Discrimination and pretext. The court found that, though AWS and the supervisor satisfied their burden by offering a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing the employee—poor performance—his evidence raised genuine issues of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment on the question of pretext. Specifically, the former employee offered evidence about (1) the supervisor’s inquiry to HR about whether he could bypass the normal PIP procedure, specifically by moving him from the "Focus" to the more serious "Pivot" category in order to fire him; (2) the supervisor’s undermining of his ability to satisfy the goals of his “Pivot” plan; and (3) inconsistencies and shifting explanations offered by both the supervisor and AWS to justify his termination. This was enough to go to trial.

Retaliation. He could also go to trial on his retaliation claims. The record established that the supervisor was aware of his HR complaints, including allegations concerning accent-related remarks, and, in addition to firing him, the supervisor’s decision to place him on “Pivot,” a second-level PIP at AWS, was “conduct reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in that protected activity, because it ultimately served as the justification for his firing.”

And although the supervisor testified that he began consulting HR about placing the employee on “Pivot” in “early February,” and noted that HR's communication with him about the employee’s allegations occurred "later in February," the supervisor also testified that the employee had been assigned six to eight new priority accounts in “mid-January, early February.” Thus, if the supervisor began contemplating a “Pivot” plan before learning of the employee’s January 31, 2024, complaint, the supervisor had “already determined [his] performance was deficient” as soon as the employee received these new priority accounts.

Finally, the evidence showed that, between February 22 and February 26, HR personnel at AWS were actively discussing whether the supervisor required "coaching" and whether he should be interviewed about the employee’s allegations. One day later, on February 27, the supervisor submitted the “Pivot” proposal. “Either way,” concluded the court, “the record permits a reasonable jury to conclude that the Pivot decision was made either prematurely - before [the employee] had a fair opportunity to succeed in his newly assigned role - or in close temporal proximity to, and potentially in response to, his protected complaints.”

The case is No. 24-cv-4704.

Judge: McMahon, C.

Attorneys: Daniel Jordan Kaiser (Kaiser Saurborn & Mair) for David Breitling. Melissa C. Rodriguez (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius) for Amazon Web Services and Randy Bradley.

Companies: Amazon Web Services

Cases: Discrimination NationalOrigin Discharge NewYorkNews GCNNews