Amazon has placed multiple software engineers on performance improvement plans—a precursor to termination—after they provided testimony to Seattle city officials regarding the environmental and infrastructure impact of proposed data centres, according to internal communications reviewed by The Verge AI.
The disciplinary actions target members of Amazon Employees for Climate Justice (AECJ), who testified in February 2025 before the Seattle City Council in support of a proposed moratorium on new data centre construction. The employees spoke during their personal time and identified themselves as Amazon workers, though they clarified they were not representing the company officially.
Amazon’s employee communications policy permits workers to speak publicly on matters of public concern, provided they include a disclaimer that views are their own. However, the company has now informed at least three engineers that their testimony violated internal guidelines, citing potential reputational harm to Amazon’s business interests.
The timing proves particularly sensitive as Amazon expands its cloud infrastructure to support growing artificial intelligence workloads. Amazon Web Services reported $100 billion in annual revenue in 2024, with data centre capacity representing a critical competitive asset against Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Platform.
Legal and Reputational Risks
Employment lawyers interviewed by TechCrunch AI suggest Amazon’s actions may constitute unlawful retaliation under Washington state labour protections, which shield employees engaging in protected civic activities. The National Labor Relations Board has previously ruled that employee advocacy on workplace conditions—including environmental impact—falls within protected concerted activity.
“Disciplining employees for testifying to government officials creates substantial legal exposure,” said Sarah Chen, a Seattle-based employment attorney not involved in the case. “Courts have consistently held that civic participation enjoys broad protection, particularly when employees speak on matters of legitimate public concern.”
Amazon declined to comment on specific personnel matters but provided a statement emphasising that employees “are welcome to participate in civic activities on their own time” whilst noting that “misrepresenting the company’s positions or business practices” violates internal policies.
Business Implications
The controversy arrives as major technology firms face intensifying scrutiny over data centre environmental impact. Training large language models requires massive computational resources, with a single AI model potentially consuming as much electricity as 1,000 UK households use annually. Seattle’s proposed moratorium specifically cited concerns about grid capacity, water usage for cooling systems, and carbon emissions.
For Amazon, the disciplinary actions create reputational risks that may outweigh any internal compliance benefits. The company has committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2040 and regularly promotes its sustainability initiatives to investors and customers. Public perception of silencing employee environmental advocates could undermine those messaging efforts.
Competitors stand to benefit if Amazon faces regulatory delays or public opposition to data centre expansion. Microsoft and Google have both emphasised transparency around AI infrastructure environmental costs, potentially positioning themselves as more responsive to community concerns.
Broader Industry Pattern
Amazon’s response follows similar tensions at other technology firms where employees have challenged corporate environmental practices. Google faced internal backlash in 2019 after dismissing workers who organised around climate issues, whilst Microsoft employees have repeatedly pressed leadership on fossil fuel contracts.
The AECJ group formed in 2019 and previously organised employee walkouts demanding stronger climate commitments. Amazon subsequently announced its Climate Pledge but also updated internal communications policies in ways critics argued restricted employee advocacy.
Seattle City Council members who heard the February testimony have requested clarification from Amazon regarding the disciplinary actions. Council member Tamara Johnson stated that any retaliation against testifying employees would be “deeply troubling and potentially actionable.”
The outcome will likely influence how technology workers across the industry assess their ability to engage in public policy debates. As AI infrastructure demands escalate, the tension between corporate expansion priorities and employee advocacy on environmental impact appears set to intensify, with significant implications for both labour relations and regulatory approaches to data centre development.
