Three U.S. software engineers file civil rights complaint, alleging company retaliated against legally protected political speech
Three Amazon software engineers who testified before Seattle City Council in support of data centre regulations are now accusing their employer of retaliating against them — and have filed a formal legal complaint asking the city to investigate, according to media reports.
Patrick Schloesser, Darius Irani and Liesl Wigand each appeared before council on June 3, speaking in favour of oversight on data centres and artificial intelligence. One week later — and one day after the council unanimously passed a one-year moratorium on large-scale data centres — all three were called into unscheduled meetings with Amazon's Employee Relations department, The Verge reported.
HR representatives informed each of them that an internal investigation had been launched and that disciplinary action, up to and including termination, was possible.
On Thursday, the three filed a complaint with the Seattle Office for Civil Rights, alleging Amazon engaged in prohibited employment discrimination under a city law that bars employers from penalizing workers for their political beliefs or affiliations.
"I am unwilling to accept a reality in which Amazon or any corporation can silence me in exercising my rights," Schloesser told The Verge. "We're not going to step back in line."
What Amazon is saying
Amazon pushed back on the employees' account, disputing the suggestion that terminations were imminent, according to the media reports.
Spokesperson Margaret Callahan said in a statement: "While our teammates are always free to talk about their working environment, we have policies against speaking as a representative of the company without following certain procedures … we're investigating whether there was a violation of our policies and may or may not take action based on what we find. It's important to note that we don't tolerate retaliatory behavior."
The company also said the employees appeared to have spoken as Amazon representatives rather than private citizens — a characterization the workers and their legal counsel reject. Lawyers representing the group noted in the civil rights complaint that the employees made no mention of Amazon during their testimony and spoke on their own time using publicly available information, according to the Seattle Times.
Concerns about data centres
All three employees are members of Amazon Employees for Climate Justice (AECJ), a current and former employee group focused on the company's environmental impact. Last year, the group published an open letter to CEO Andy Jassy and his executive team, signed by more than 1,200 Amazon employees and over 4,000 workers from other companies and universities, calling for data centres to be powered entirely by renewable energy, a slower and more deliberate AI rollout, and restrictions on using AI for surveillance or mass deportation, according to the Seattle Times.
The employees were not calling for an outright ban on data centres. Their testimony echoed AECJ's broader concerns — that the pace and scale of AI infrastructure development poses risks to democracy, the workforce, and the environment.
"Workers need to be involved in these conversations," Irani told the Seattle Times. "We still live in a democracy, not a corporate state, which is why I participated in filing the complaint with my co-workers and AECJ."
Worker protections
Abby Lawlor, an attorney at Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt representing AECJ, said Seattle's law offers workers rare but meaningful protection.
"Seattle is one of just a few jurisdictions in the country that prohibits private employers from discriminating against their employees based on the political beliefs they hold and the organizations they belong to," Lawlor said in a statement cited by The Verge.
"This protection gave AECJ members confidence in speaking out before the Seattle City Council in favor of local data center and AI regulation, and it prohibits exactly what Amazon is doing now—investigating them and threatening their employment as a direct consequence of their advocacy."
