Amazon Worker's Disability Suit Heads to Jury Trial

Federal judge rules Amazon must face jury on failure to accommodate worker's back injury limits

Jan. 29, 2026 at 3:23pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A federal judge has ruled that a jury must decide whether Amazon.com Inc. failed to properly accommodate a California warehouse worker whose back injury limited his ability to push more than 50-60 pounds. The worker, Chase Nelson, was moved from the 'pick' department to receiving, but the court said an employer's obligation to accommodate a worker with a disability is ongoing and not extinguished by a single job reassignment attempt.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing legal obligations employers have to reasonably accommodate workers with disabilities, even after an initial job reassignment. It could set an important precedent around how far companies must go to find suitable work for injured or disabled employees.

The details

Chase Nelson, an Amazon warehouse worker in Sacramento, California, suffered a back injury that limited his ability to push more than 50-60 pounds. Despite being moved from the 'pick' department to receiving, a federal judge ruled that a jury must decide whether Amazon failed in its duty to continue accommodating Nelson's disability.

  • The incident occurred at Amazon's Sacramento, California facility.

The players

Chase Nelson

A California Amazon warehouse worker who suffered a back injury limiting his ability to push more than 50-60 pounds.

Amazon.com Inc.

The e-commerce giant that was sued by one of its California warehouse workers over failure to accommodate his disability.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What’s next

A jury trial will now determine whether Amazon failed to adequately accommodate Nelson's disability after moving him to a different department.

The takeaway

This case underscores the ongoing legal obligations employers have to reasonably accommodate workers with disabilities, even after initial job reassignment attempts. It could set an important precedent around how far companies must go to find suitable work for injured or disabled employees.