A recent lawsuit claims that a technology company terminated an employee while he was on approved military leave, raising questions about protections for service members in the workplace. The complaint was filed by Douglas Michael Powers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on March 20, 2026, naming Amazon Web Services, Inc. as the defendant.
According to the filing, Powers alleges that his employment was unlawfully terminated while he was deployed with the United States Army National Guard. The suit is brought under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which provides certain job protections to members of the uniformed services. Powers seeks reinstatement or front pay, back pay, lost wages and benefits, liquidated damages for what he describes as willful violations of USERRA by Amazon Web Services (AWS), as well as attorneys’ fees and related costs.
The complaint details that Powers began working at AWS’s Atlanta facility on March 6, 2024 as a Senior Security Specialist on the Wickr Go-to-Market Team. His compensation package included a base salary of $195,000 per year, sign-on bonuses totaling over $240,000 across two years if fully paid out, and a restricted stock unit award covering 1,975 shares of Amazon.com common stock with an estimated value exceeding $400,000 at the time of his termination. He also received standard benefits such as retirement plan participation and paid leave.
Powers states that he notified AWS on December 29, 2025 about his upcoming deployment orders requiring active duty from February 4 through at least September 30, 2026. This notice was provided according to company policy and supported by official military documentation. AWS approved his request for military leave without pay.
However, on January 28, 2026—while still on approved military leave—Powers received a separation notice from AWS indicating that his position had been eliminated due to a company-wide reduction in force affecting approximately 16,000 employees. The notification period extended until April 28, 2026; during this time Powers did not receive regular paychecks because he was already on unpaid military leave. The complaint asserts that unlike non-military employees affected by layoffs who could apply for internal positions during this period or continue receiving certain benefits and paychecks until their separation date, Powers could not compete for other roles due to his ongoing deployment.
The lawsuit further alleges that Will Martin—a non-military peer—was retained in place of Powers despite having similar responsibilities and subsequently assumed Powers’s job duties after his departure. It is also noted in the filing that Martin’s wife holds a leadership role within AWS overseeing Department of Defense business.
Powers contends that these actions violate several provisions of USERRA: discrimination based on military service (38 U.S.C. §4311(a)), retaliation for exercising protected rights (38 U.S.C. §4311(b)), denial of reemployment rights (38 U.S.C. §§4312-4313), and denial of employment benefits during military absence (38 U.S.C. §4316). The complaint points to AWS’s own written policies acknowledging obligations toward employees serving in uniformed services as evidence that any violation would be willful or reckless.
As remedies sought from the court, Powers requests reinstatement to his former or an equivalent position with full salary and benefits restored—or front pay if reinstatement is not possible—as well as compensatory damages including lost wages (base salary plus sign-on bonuses), lost RSU vesting valued at approximately $414,750 for unvested shares at termination time, lost retirement contributions and other accrued benefits such as vacation time. He also seeks liquidated damages equal to lost wages and benefits due to alleged willful conduct by AWS under USERRA provisions.
In addition to monetary relief and reinstatement or front pay in lieu thereof, Powers asks for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses to be covered by AWS pursuant to statute; injunctive relief barring further discriminatory or retaliatory practices; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and any other relief deemed just by the court.
The case is identified as Case No.: 1:26-cv-01536-ELR in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Attorneys representing Douglas Michael Powers are Christine A. Forsythe of The Forsythe Law Firm LLC in Atlanta and Joseph A. Whitcomb (pro hac vice pending) of Whitcomb Selinsky PC in Lakewood.
Source: 126cv01536_Douglas_Michael_v_Amazon_Web_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
