Jackson v. Amazon.com, Inc.

── Jackson v. Amazon.com, Inc. ── Case No.: 25-72 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 17, 2026 Category: General 25-72 Jackson v. Amazon.com, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: MICHAEL H. PARK, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, Circuit Judges. ________________________________________ SILICIA ANIQUE JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 25-72 AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________ FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: SILICIA ANIQUE JACKSON, pro se, Staten Island, NY. FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: ELI Z. FREEDBERG, Littler Mendelson, P.C., New York, NY.  Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Donnelly, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the December 6, 2024 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant Silicia Jackson, pro se, alleges that Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon.com Services, LLC (together “Amazon”) discriminated against her because of her religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When Amazon informed employees that it would require them to submit proof that they had received a COVID-19 vaccination, Jackson submitted a religious exemption request explaining that vaccinations violated her deeply held religious beliefs. She told Amazon that she believed the vaccine would “undermine the way my Creator designed my natural body to work and function on Earth, my spiritual body, my soul’s purpose and my soul’s ascension and passage into heaven.” App’x at 62. Amazon approved her request for a religious exemption and told her she could come to work if she agreed to wear a mask, maintain social distancing, and take a COVID-19 test every seven days. Jackson responded that “testing is also against her sincerely held religious beliefs.” Id. at 11. Amazon replied that if Jackson did not agree to testing, it “would put [her] on a personal leave of absence” and “would work with the job search reassignment team to try and place [her] at a site outside of New York.” Id. at 13. After Jackson was unable to find another position, Amazon placed her on a leave of absence. She then sued, alleging that Amazon violated Title VII by failing to give her a reasonable accommodation to the testing requirement and by treating her differently than other coworkers by requiring her to wear a mask and take regular COVID-19 tests. She appeals from the district court’s order and judgment granting Defendants’ motion to 2 dismiss. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of th