Violations of Workers’ Compensation Law

What is Workers Compensation?


Workers compensation is a form of insurance providing pay and medical benefits to employees workerhurtwho are injured while they are at work, in exchange for mandatory relinquishment of the employee’s right to sue his or her employer for negligence. Any large scale business, such as Amazon will be subject to numerous worker’s compensation claims throughout its existence. Amazon has employees worldwide who all perform vastly different tasks, including, warehouse employees, customer service representatives, technical analysts, etc. Most of the litigation regarding workers’ compensation and Amazon takes place first in an administrative setting and then is brought to a court of law for the decision to be challenged and/or enforced.

  • Amazon.Com v. Magee, 2006 Nev. LEXIS 5 (Nev. Jan. 11, 2006).

The court reversed the lower court’s denial of review of the petition, as Magee should not have been granted temporary total disability benefits as she was still able to earn a wage.

  • v. Magee, 121 Nev. 632 (Nev. 2005).

The court concluded that a worker released to work with restrictions is only temporarily partially disabled; therefore, her position and salary need not comport with NRS 616C.475, which sets forth standards regarding when an employer, by offering modified employment, can cease making temporary total disability payments.

  • v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Davidson), 2015 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 592 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). filed a petition to review an order of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board that affirmed the decision of a workers’ compensation judge denying Employer’s termination petition and granting the review and reinstatement petitions filed by Leon Davison. The court concluded that because the findings showed no legal error, they affirmed the judgment.

  • Boyd v. Review Bd., 13 N.E.3d 950 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

The court here was determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Indiana Department of Workforce Development Board’s (the board) determination that Plaintiff, Boyd was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits because she was discharged for just cause. The court affirmed the decision and found that plaintiff was discharged for just cause because plaintiff was aware of the attendance policy at issue as well as the fact that her actions would violate the policy. The court found this to be just cause for termination.

  • Gillette v., 2016 Del. Super. LEXIS 168 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 22, 2016). was the employer of plaintiff, Gillette. Gillette petitioned to the Industrial Accident Board to determine compensation due for her back injuries that allegedly began at work. The Board denied the petition and Gillette appealed. On appeal, the District Court affirmed the Boards decision to deny the petition to determine compensation due. The court found there was no legal error on behalf of the board.

  • Gribbins v., Case No. 2003-CA-002208-WC. Court of Appeals of Kentucky, March 2004.

Ina Barnett Gribbins was an employee at Amazon. She alleged that she sustained injuries at work. The Workers’ Compensation Board found she was only at a 5% impairment. She appealed the order. The court, finding that the evidence did not fall in favor of Gribbins, affirmed the order of the Workers’ Compensation Board.

  • Gribbins v., 2005 Ky. Unpub. LEXIS 67 (Ky. Apr. 21, 2005).

Ina Barnett Gribbins was an employee at Amazon. She alleged that she sustained injuries at work. She now appeals the Court of Appeals decision to affirm the Workers’ Compensation Boards’ affirming of the Administrative Law Judge’s award. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

  • Hickman v. Amazon Fullfillment, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168782 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 2015).

The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss as the complaint provided by the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim.

  • Hickman v. Amazon Fullfilment, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45937 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 5, 2016).

The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss as the complaint provided by the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim. Additionally, the court did not grant leave to amend as it determined plaintiff had been awarded enough opportunities to do so.

  • Kelley v., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166534, 15 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P15-244, 2013 WL 6119229 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 21, 2013).

This was a wrongful termination and employee’s rights case. Plaintiff Jodie Kelley alleged that her former employer, a subsidiary of, Inc., violated state and federal law by failing to accommodate her disabilities and relying upon her requests for medical leave as a reason for terminating her employment. Kelley’s argument was found to be ineffective. As a threshold matter, the evidence of a causal relationship between Plaintiff’s deficient performance and her disabilities was entirely speculative.

  • McGee v., 2013 Del. Super. LEXIS 33 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 31, 2013).

The court determined that the decision of UIAB should be affirmed as Amazon had substantial evidence to show that violation of the company policy should constitute denial of worker’s compensation benefits.  As an employee was on notice that he needed to improve his attendance record or risk losing his job, and as the employee received a third warning within a 12-month period in violation the employer’s policy, the employee was terminated for just cause; thus, he was not entitled to unemployment benefits under Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, § 3314(2).

  • Shulman v., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20984 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 15, 2013). This was a case involving plaintiff’s request for relief from a sanctions judgment. The court denied the motion for relief of judgment.
  • Shulman v., LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51291 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 20, 2015).

The court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, as Shulman failed to state a claim in his complaint for the alleged discrimination.

  • Shulman v., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76975 (W.D. Wash. May 30, 2013).

This case involved defendants’ motion to dismiss a complaint for not being filed in a timely manner and failing to state a claim under the family medical leave act. The court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint and action.

  • Shulman v. Amazon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113506 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 15, 2014).

The defendants’ Motion for Sanctions is denied for lack of evidence of plaintiff’s reckless conduct or intent to thwart the proceedings.

  • Stevenson v., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21172 (D. Mass. Feb. 22, 2016).

This was a case involving plaintiff’s claim that her constitutional rights were violated by her employer. The court dismissed the claims against Amazon and Security Industry Specialists, Inc., that stemmed from the alleged constitutional rights violations.

  • Stout v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172088 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2012).

This case involved a plaintiff’s motion to seal documents from being published to the public. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to seal confidential documents in part and denies in part.

  • Vance v., Inc. (In re, Inc.), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48650 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2016).

The court here was determining whether to grant defendants motion to dismiss. The court found that the plaintiffs did not have a sufficient claim under Kentucky law. Even though Kentucky has its own wage and hour law, the state statute closely resembles the FLSA. Neither the statute of the FLSA defines the word “work.” The court finds that in order to define the term “work,” that Kentucky courts will look to federal cases interpreting the FLSA to decide what activities constitute “work.” In the Busk case, the Supreme Court held that the the Portal-to-Portal Act excludes post-shift security checks, and Kentucky courts will use Busk to fill the state’s statutory void. Therefore, the court granted the defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings.