In Breitling v. Amazon Web Services & Randy Bradley, No. 24-CV-4704, 2026 WL 810284 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2026), the court, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of national origin (Chilean) discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
From the decision:
Breitling has satisfied the first three elements of his prima facie discrimination claim: (1) he is Chilean, and therefore a member of a protected group; (2) he was employed continuously from at least September 19, 2022, until being fired on June 28, 2024, demonstrating that he was qualified for the position he held; and (3) he was fired from AWS by Bradley. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1; Dkt. No. 39 ¶¶ 6, 70. Livingston v. City of New York, 563 F. Supp. 3d 201, 232–33 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
Breitling has raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the circumstances of his termination support an inference of discrimination. Breitling offered evidence that Bradley – who made the decision to fire him from AWS – made a series of discriminatory comments during the period while he was Breitling’ supervisor and was evaluating Breitling’s performance.1 Dkt. No. 49 ¶ 12. These include comments about Breitling’s accent being too difficult for Bradley to understand and that “being argumentative is part of your culture.” Id. ¶¶ 12–13, 15; Dkt. No. 50-2, Holmes Tr. 22:1–9.
Additionally, Breitling offered evidence that during a meeting on February 21, 2024, Bradley made the following comment to Breitling: “The problem, David, 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?” Dkt. No. 49-4; Dkt. No. 45, at 6–7.
The evidence shows that Breitling moved to New York in 1978, graduated from Harpur College at Binghamton University in 1981, and earned his MBA from Columbia University in 1987. Dkt. No. 50-5, Breitling Tr. 59:19–61:7. He has lived in the United States continuously since 1978, except for one year, in 1983, when he was in Paris conducting neurological research at the French Academy of Sciences. Id. A trier of fact could fairly infer that Breitling speaks and writes impeccable English – or at least English that is good enough to warrant employment at Amazon.Breitling also offered evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he was treated less favorably than a similarly situated peers outside his protected class. One identified comparator, Jen Holmes, is an American woman. She served as an L7 GTM specialist on the same team, reported to Bradley, and was subject to the same performance evaluation and discipline standards. Despite being placed on “Focus” (the first level of performance improvement plan at AWS) for similar reasons as Breitling – including the quality of her “Amazon Writing” – Holmes was not required to take an “Amazon Writing” course, which Bradley required of Breitling. Dkt. No. 39 ¶ 34; Dkt. No. 50-4, Tr. 18Dkt. No. 50-4, Tr. 18:7–21:4. Breitling also offered evidence that another colleague, Chris Taylor, an American male, was installed as “co-head” of GTM Banking while Breitling’s responsibilities were shrinking. Taylor was ultimately promoted to Head of GTM upon Breitling’s departure and Bradley’s promotion. Dkt. No. 50-5, Breitling Tr. 200:16–201:6; Dkt. No. 50-4, Bradley Tr. 77:3–78:6.
While Defendants have satisfied their burden by offering a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing Breitling – poor performance, see Dkt. No. 38, at 14–15 – Breitling’s evidence raises genuine issues of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment on the question of pretext. The record contains ample evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude either that Defendants’ proffered reasons were pretextual, or that discrimination played some role in the adverse employment actions he experienced, even if performance concerns also played a role. In addition to the evidence discussed above, Breitling offered evidence about: (1) Bradley’s inquiry to HR about whether he could bypass the normal performance improvement procedure (i.e., moving Breitling from “Focus” to “Pivot”) in order to fire Plaintiff; see Dkt. No. 49 ¶ 29; Dkt. No. 49-6. (2) Bradley’s undermining Breitling’s ability to satisfy the goals of his Pivot plan. See, e.g., Dkt. 50-3, Bradley Tr. 53:23–61:25, 63: 7–65:3, 91:8–96:24, 105:6–114:19, 115:6–118:9, 129:5–132:21, 137:4–146:23, 158:5–13, 159:1–11, 166:24–167:21; Dkt. No. 41-6, at 4; Dkt. No. 50-5, Breitling Tr. 49:13–22; Dkt. No. 42-6, at 4; and (3) The inconsistencies and shifting explanations offered by Defendants to justify Breitling’s termination. See e.g., Dkt. No. 50-1, at 4; Dkt. No. 42-6, at 4; Dkt. No. 50-5, Breitling Tr. 223:15–224:8; Dkt. No. 38, at 13, 14, 17; Dkt. No. 50-3, Bradley Tr. 65:4–66:2, 132:22–136:20, 149:2–154:2. The court is not bothering to identify all of the evidence that raises genuine issues of fact; this is sufficient to establish that the Defendants are not entitled to dismissal of the case in advance of trial.
Accordingly, based on this, denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment was warranted.