Attendance Policy, Not ‘Stray Remarks’ Drives Employer Win

The following article was first published on Shipman & Goodwin attorney Dan Schwartz’ Connecticut Employment Law Blog. It is reposted here with permission.

---

A new decision out of the District of Connecticut is a timely reminder for employers that clear, consistently applied attendance policies can carry the day—even when a supervisor has made awkward comments that later become part of the lawsuit.

In Ward v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Judge Victor Bolden granted summary judgment to Amazon on a former employee’s Title VII claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, ending the federal case on May 22, 2026.

The court held that the undisputed record showed the plaintiff was terminated for violating Amazon’s attendance rules by carrying a negative “unpaid time” balance, not for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.

The case involved an onsite medical representative who transferred to Amazon’s Windsor facility.

He alleged that two safety managers asked him multiple times whether he was dating a co-worker and twice asked about his chosen pronouns.

He also conceded he missed scheduled shifts and carried a negative balance under Amazon’s unpaid time policy.

Decision-Makers

Centralized HR decision-makers—rather than the supervisors who asked the questions—terminated his employment after multiple written notices about his negative balance.

Notably, one of those supervisors recommended a final written warning instead of termination, and Amazon later fired that supervisor following an internal investigation unrelated to the termination decision itself.

The court’s analysis followed the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and applied the Second Circuit’s “stray remarks” factors when assessing the significance of the supervisors’ comments about dating and pronouns.

HR emailed specific warnings that a negative balance “can lead to termination if not resolved.”

The key facts driving summary judgment were simple and well-documented.

First, the record was undisputed that Amazon’s attendance policies allowed termination for a sustained negative UPT balance, that the plaintiff knew the policy, and that he remained in the red even after giving him the benefit of a disputed scheduling glitch.

HR emailed him specific warnings that a negative balance “can lead to termination if not resolved,” and then reviewed his ongoing violations before acting. That paper trail mattered.

Knowledge, Involvement

Second, the people who made the termination decision were centralized HR and safety leadership, not the supervisor who had asked the awkward questions—and that supervisor had actually advocated against termination.

Without evidence linking her comments to the decision-makers, the court treated those comments as non‑actionable stray remarks rather than proof of discriminatory motive.

The court treated those comments as non‑actionable stray remarks rather than proof of discriminatory motive.

Regular readers may recall that I’ve written before about how decision-maker knowledge and involvement drive outcomes in these cases; this is that principle in action.

Third, the plaintiff’s proposed comparator evaporated on the record. The employee he identified as “similarly situated” didn’t have a negative UPT balance at all. Without an apt comparator, the pretext argument had nowhere to go.

Fourth, retaliation fell for similar reasons. The court found no admissible evidence that the decisionmakers knew about a protected complaint before the termination or the internal appeal was decided, and timing alone wasn’t enough to carry the day under the governing standard for summary judgment.

Why This Matters for Employers

For employers, the decision is both practical and instructive.

When you separate the adverse action from any alleged bad actor, document neutral policy enforcement, and maintain accurate records, courts are far more likely to conclude there’s no genuine dispute of material fact.

That’s true even in cases where an individual supervisor asks questions that later come across as insensitive or off‑topic.

This is a good moment to confirm your practices are aligned with your policies.

Conversely, if attendance systems don’t carve out protected leave correctly, or if decision-making authority isn’t centralized or documented, you can find yourself litigating intent and comparators instead of policy compliance.

This decision doesn’t give a free pass for insensitive comments.

It does, however, underscore that in court, outcomes typically turn on what the decision-makers knew, the policy you actually enforced, and what the records show.

In a year when attendance and leave systems are drawing more attention, this is a good moment to confirm your practices are aligned with your policies—and that your documentation would make a judge comfortable granting summary judgment if a dispute arises.

---

About the author: Dan Schwartz is a partner at Shipman & Goodwin and has decades of experience solving complex employment law problems for companies.