Rahim Caldwell v. Amazon.com Services LLC

── Rahim Caldwell v. Amazon.com Services LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-2522 __________ RAHIM R. CALDWELL, Appellant v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; ROBIN LUCCI; CORI KONOPKA; BRIAN OLIVER; VINCENT SAMPOLI; HENRY VACA; TIMOTHY DHULOS; JAMES LOOMIS ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-10666) District Judge: Honorable Christine P. O’Hearn ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 7, 2026 Before: KRAUSE, RESTREPO, and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed May 29, 2026) ___________ OPINION* ___________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Rahim Caldwell appeals pro se from the District Court’s order dismissing with prejudice a complaint that he filed against Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon”), his former employer, and several of its employees. We will affirm. Amazon originally fired Caldwell in early September 2022 due to a systemic error in its timekeeping software that recorded his paid time off as unexcused shift breaks. The company’s Human Resources Department discovered the error, reinstated Caldwell in early October, and agreed to pay him lost wages for the time he was not working. When his backpay had not arrived by October 19, Caldwell complained to an onsite medical representative using derogatory language and became disruptive. Loss Prevention Specialists Cori Konopka and Vincent Sampoli arrived and attempted to interview Caldwell about the episode, but he refused to answer their questions; Caldwell eventually left the building after Konopka contacted the police. On October 28, following an internal investigation, Amazon terminated Caldwell for failing to cooperate during the initial interview and for using abusive language in the workplace. Caldwell believes that he was being unfairly punished for lodging complaints, so he filed three successive lawsuits against the company and various ex-coworkers in the Superior Court of New Jersey raising a variety of claims, including wrongful termination and racial discrimination. Amazon removed each lawsuit to federal court. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Amazon, Konopka, and a human resources representative in the oldest of the three cases in October 2024 because Caldwell could not establish a causal connection between his firing and any protected activity and he failed 2 to rebut the company’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for terminating him. See Caldwell v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Civ. No. 1:22-cv-07251, Doc. 84 (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2024) (“Caldwell I”). Caldwell did not appeal the final judgment in that case. The instant appeal stems from the District Court’s dismissal of Caldwell’s second lawsuit, which he filed against Amazon, Konopka, and several new defendants. The court, in granting all defendants’ motions to dismiss in a series of three orders, explained that Caldwell’s claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Caldwell appeals1 and seeks leave to file an overlength brief. We have jurisdicti