Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—D. Utah: Amazon’s safety-violation rationale insufficient to defeat age discrimination claim, (Nov 14, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

A former warehouse employee may continue pursuing his age discrimination claim after alleging that Amazon’s reliance on safety violations masked disparate treatment, with substantially younger coworkers engaging in similar conduct without comparable discipline.

A Utah federal court refused to dismiss a 71-year-old warehouse worker’s age discrimination claim, concluding that Amazon’s assertion that two alleged safety violations justified his termination did not undermine his contention that younger employees received more favorable treatment. The complaint alleged that Amazon terminated him after the incidents while substantially younger coworkers engaged in similar conduct but were neither disciplined nor dismissed. The court found these allegations sufficient to support a plausible link between his termination and age bias. By contrast, the court dismissed the worker’s national origin and state-law claims, finding they fell outside the scope of his administrative charge or were not permitted under Utah law (Tarasov v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00616-RJS-DAO (D. Utah Nov. 12, 2025)).

Employment and termination. The warehouse worker was employed at Amazon’s Utah fulfillment center from 2018 until early April 2024. For most of that period, he maintained a clean record without safety violations or disciplinary action. Toward the end of his employment, however, he received two alleged safety violations.

The first occurred in August 2023, when he responded to a paint spill by shutting down a conveyor belt and removing unaffected packages to avoid contamination. The complaint states that Amazon issued a warning even though the area lacked posted safety notices and he did not cause the spill. He received a second violation in March 2024 for allegedly speeding in the company parking lot. According to the complaint, congestion in the lot had been a longstanding issue, Amazon had not installed signage required by Utah law, and other employees exited the lot in a similar manner without consequence.

Amazon terminated the worker two days after the second incident. At the time, he was 71 years old and one of the oldest employees in the facility. He spoke limited English and was of Russian national origin. The complaint asserts that younger employees and employees not of Russian descent engaged in similar conduct but were not terminated or disciplined in the same way. Based on these allegations, he filed a charge with the EEOC asserting age and disability discrimination, although the charge did not reference national origin or language issues.

After receiving a right-to-sue notice, he filed suit asserting claims under the ADEA, Title VII, and the Utah Antidiscrimination Act (UADA). Amazon moved to dismiss all claims.

National origin and UADA claims dismissed. The court first addressed whether the worker exhausted administrative remedies for his Title VII national origin claim. Because Title VII requires employees to file a charge with the EEOC before suing, a claim may proceed only if it falls within the scope of the charge or could reasonably be expected to grow out of the agency’s investigation.

The court noted that the charge form provides specific boxes for claimants to identify the protected categories at issue. The worker checked only “Age” and “Disability.” The narrative section described his age and referenced his disability but did not mention his national origin, language abilities, or any events suggesting discrimination on that basis.

Although courts construe EEOC charges liberally, the analysis is limited to the language of the charge itself. The worker argued that the EEOC’s investigative file might show that national origin issues were explored, but the court explained that exhaustion depends solely on the charge’s content, not the agency’s investigative steps. Because the charge neither checked the national origin box nor included a narrative suggesting national origin discrimination, the claim exceeded the permissible scope of the lawsuit and had to be dismissed.

The court also dismissed the worker’s claim under the Utah Antidiscrimination Act after he conceded that the state law does not authorize private lawsuits for employment discrimination.

Age discrimination. Amazon challenged three components of the worker’s ADEA claim: but-for causation, whether he was qualified for his position, and whether he was treated less favorably than similarly situated, substantially younger employees.

The complaint alleged that Amazon terminated a 71-year-old employee for speeding in a congested parking lot while substantially younger employees who engaged in similar conduct were not disciplined. It further alleged that the safety violations were pretextual and used to remove an older worker after years of satisfactory performance. Amazon argued that these allegations did not plausibly show that age was a but-for cause of the termination. The court disagreed.

Although the complaint did not expressly state that age was the but-for cause of the firing, the court noted that no specific phrasing is required. The factual allegations, taken as true, permitted a reasonable inference that age made a difference in the termination decision.

Amazon also contended that the complaint failed to allege that the worker was qualified for his position. The court rejected that argument, observing that he worked more than five years in the warehouse without disciplinary infractions, which allowed a reasonable inference that he was qualified. His termination stemmed from an alleged traffic violation, not from any failure to perform his job duties.

Amazon’s final challenge was that the worker had not pleaded that similarly situated, substantially younger employees were treated more favorably. The company argued that the complaint did not identify their names, ages, or specific conduct. The court found such detail unnecessary at the pleading stage. It pointed to allegations that younger employees engaged in similar conduct, including navigating the parking lot in the same manner, yet did not receive comparable discipline. At this early stage, the worker needed only to plausibly allege differential treatment, not provide comparator evidence at summary judgment. Taken together, the allegations supported an inference that he was treated less favorably than substantially younger coworkers.

The case is No. 2:25-cv-00616-RJS-DAO.

Judge: Shelby, R.

Attorneys: Alexey Tarasov (Tarasov Law) and Joseph Goddaeus Ballstaedt (Tingey Ballstaedt Finlay) for Viacheslav Tarasov aka Slava. Brian D. Tuttle (Littler Mendelson) for Amazon.com Services LLC.

Companies: Amzaon.com Services, LLC

Cases: AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge UtahNews