May 31 (Reuters) - Amazon.com ( AMZN ) on Friday lost an early

bid to dismiss claims that the company discriminated against a

Black event producer by limiting her job duties and placing her

on a performance improvement plan.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian is

among the first to apply an April ruling by the U.S. Supreme

Court in Muldrow v. St. Louis that said workers do not have to

show a concrete injury such as a pay cut, demotion or firing to

pursue claims under the federal law banning employment

discrimination.

Keesha Anderson, an event specialist for Amazon Music from

2019 to 2022, says she was forced to quit after supervisors

sidelined her and placed her on a performance plan, or PIP, that

all but guaranteed failure.

Subramanian rejected Amazon's ( AMZN ) claim that placing Anderson on

the PIP and allegedly diminishing her role at Amazon Music were

not "adverse actions" that can form the basis of a claim under

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which bars race

discrimination in contracts.

"Although some of these actions might once have been

considered immaterial, they are now enough to state a claim" in

light of Muldrow, the judge wrote.

Amazon ( AMZN ) and a lawyer for Anderson did not immediately respond

to requests for comment. Amazon ( AMZN ) has denied wrongdoing.

The Muldrow decision involved Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, which bars workplace discrimination based on race,

sex and other traits. The Supreme Court said Title VII applies

to any employment action that negatively impacts working

conditions and not only material decisions such as hiring and

setting pay.

Subramanian said the high court's ruling applied to claims

brought under Section 1981 because the laws use similar language

and are generally interpreted in tandem.

Anderson sued Amazon ( AMZN ) last year. She claims that during her

time with the company she was excluded from meetings and events,

had her ideas rejected, and that her duties were limited to

administrative tasks. Anderson had both white and Black

supervisors, according to court filings.

Anderson says she was placed on a PIP in 2020 because of

minor infractions she had committed, and that being required to

complete the plan barred her from being promoted or transferred.

She claims that an unidentified "whistleblower" told her that

her supervisors were conspiring to push her out, prompting her

to quit in 2022.

Amazon ( AMZN ) moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the conduct

alleged by Anderson did not amount to an adverse action.

Few courts have addressed whether workers can sue for

discrimination after being placed on a performance plan. The

Virginia-based 4th Circuit held in 2015 that a PIP cannot form

the basis of a Title VII claim, and the New Orleans-based 5th

Circuit last year said a worker's performance plan was not an

adverse action because it had no impact on his working

conditions.

Subramanian did not discuss those cases in denying Amazon's ( AMZN )

motion on Friday. But he said the heightened standard for

determining what counts as an adverse action that the 2nd

Circuit, which covers New York, and other courts had imposed

prior to Muldrow no longer applied.

"These actions adversely affected Anderson's benefits,

privileges, terms, or conditions of employment by saddling her

with more and worse tasks, tarnishing her permanent record,

dampening her prospects of a promotion or raise, temporarily

preventing her from transferring, excluding her from certain

meetings and projects, and so on," the judge wrote.

The case is Anderson v. Amazon.com Inc ( AMZN ), U.S. District Court

for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:23-cv-08347.

For Anderson: Jessie Djata

For Amazon ( AMZN ): Michael Goettig and Rodrigo Tranamil of Davis

Wright Tremaine

Read more:

US Supreme Court widens scope of workplace bias suits

U.S. Supreme Court grapples with applying workplace bias law

to job transfers

(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York)