(Viviane Ghaderi v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., No. 24STCV09529, Calif. Super., Los Angeles Co.)
(Complaint available. Document #46-240501-026C.)
In a lawsuit filed April 16 by Viviane Ghaderi in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, she says Amazon realized in 2022 and throughout 2023 that it was playing catch-up in the field of AI. As a result, it invested $4 billion in Anthropic PBC in an effort to close the AI gap. But in addition, Amazon began discouraging employee absences, even those protected by law, and workers who complained were retaliated against “in the battle for the future of the technology industry,” Ghaderi says.
Ghaderi, an AI researcher with a doctorate from the University of Southern California, says she was recruited by Amazon in 2022 as part of its effort to close the AI gap. Ghaderi says she quickly received a promotion to head the company’s Alexa efforts and was told that she would be reporting to the director of the department in which she worked. Ghaderi says she informed Amazon of her pregnancy a week after the announcement of her promotion and was quickly given a “temporary” transfer to a new manager, Mahesh Krishnakumar, and her role as the leader of a team was given to someone else during her absence.
In addition to Amazon, Ghaderi names Krishnakumar and Amazon managing director Andrey Styskin as defendants.
Impact
Ghaderi says Amazon was in a panic when OpenAI Inc. released ChatGPT during her leave of absence, and when she returned to Amazon after her 10-week leave, she found that her former division had been given no direction in her absence. Amazon never reversed her “temporary” transfer, and Styskin rebuffed her request to return her reporting structure to its status before her leave, Ghaderi alleges.
Ghaderi says that when she complained that her maternity leave was negatively impacting her duties and annual review, she was stripped of her duties and her team members were assigned to other supervisors. “When she complained that her reassignment was retaliatory, Human Resources conducted a cursory investigation with predetermined results, finding no evidence of pregnancy discrimination. This finding was notwithstanding multiple comments by her direct supervisor about how she should ‘spend time with [her] daughter’ and ‘just enjoy being a new mother’ when she expressed concerns about her career trajectory,” Ghaderi says.
Ghaderi says she was placed in charge of flagging violations of Amazon’s internal copyright policies related to the development of AI large language models. As part of this role, Ghaderi says, she reported the difficulties she faced from the copyright policies but was told by her manager to ignore the policies because all the other AI companies were doing it.
Ghaderi says she was placed on a covert performance plan and eventually a second plan that required her to meet impossible benchmarks. Ghaderi says she was fired in November 2023 along with at least one other team member who also took leave.
Ghaderi alleges discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov. Code § 12940 et seq., against Amazon; retaliation in violation of FEHA against all defendants; harassment in violation of FEHA against Amazon, Styskin and Krishnakumar; retaliation in violation of the California Family Rights Act and the California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940(h), 12945.2(k), against Amazon; failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA, retaliation in violation of California Labor Code Section 1102.5, Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5, against all defendants; and wrongful termination in violation of public policy against Amazon.
Ghaderi seeks actual and liquidated damages, statutory and civil penalties and punitive and exemplary damages.
Ghaderi is represented by Julian Burns King, Robert J. King and Andrea Obando of King & Siegel LLP in Sacramento, Calif.