Amazon employees face investigation after testifying against AI data centers at Seattle hearings

Amazon Investigating Engineers Who Testified Against AI Data Center Expansion

Three Amazon employees—Darius Irani, Patrick Schloesser, and Liesl Wigand—are facing internal investigations after they testified at Seattle City Council meetings in support of regulating AI data centers. The engineers, all members of Amazon Employees for Climate Justice (AECJ), were called to separate Zoom meetings with HR representatives following the city's passage of a one-year moratorium on new large-scale data center construction1

1

. During these meetings, they were informed that Amazon was investigating concerns about their public comments and that the inquiry could lead to disciplinary action ranging up to termination3

3

.

The employee investigation began on June 10, just one day after the Seattle City Council unanimously passed the Seattle data center moratorium4

4

. During the hearings, five Amazon employees criticized what they described as an "all-costs-justified AI build out" and urged the council to add renewable energy requirements and labor protections to the city's data center regulations2

2

. They called for government intervention to stop the industry's rush to build out compute capacity before regulations could catch up.

Corporate AI Expansion Meets Employee Pushback

Amazon spokesperson Margaret Callahan defended the investigations, stating that while employees are free to discuss their working environment, they cannot speak as company representatives without following certain procedures. "As we looked more closely at how these employees represented themselves, and how their comments were received by others, it became clear that they may have been speaking in their capacity as Amazonians and not as private citizens," Callahan told Bloomberg1

1

. The company emphasized it was investigating whether there was a violation of policies and "may or may not take action based on what we find"5

5

.

However, legal representatives for the three engineers strongly dispute this characterization. In a letter to the Seattle Office for Civil Rights (SOCR), their lawyers argued that the employees did not use company time when making their comments, never mentioned their employer, and shared no proprietary information1

1

. Everything they said was based on publicly available information.

Civil Rights Complaint Filed Over Political Advocacy

The three Amazon employees have now filed a civil rights complaint with the SOCR, accusing Amazon of violating a Seattle ordinance that prohibits companies from discriminating against employees based on their political ideology, race, religion, and age2

2

. The complaint alleges that Amazon's questioning made the staffers feel "intimidated and uncertain in their future employment" and that they learned the company was monitoring their political advocacy before the Seattle City Council and seeking to identify additional employees who had engaged in political activities3

3

.

Darius Irani, one of the engineers under investigation, stated: "All I did was testify because I believe it's critical that the government regulates data centers and AI. Workers need to be involved in these conversations"5

5

. His comment reflects a growing sentiment among tech workers that they should have a voice in decisions about the environmental impact of corporate AI expansion, particularly regarding electricity consumption and water consumption.

Pattern of Retaliation Against Climate Activists

This is not the first time AECJ members have faced consequences for speaking out. Amazon fired Emily Cunningham and Maren Costa, two of AECJ's original organizers, in 2020 over their criticisms of the company's climate and labor practices2

2

. The former employees sued Amazon for illegal termination, and the company settled with them in 2021, agreeing to pay their back wages and post a notice to all workers that it cannot fire them "for organizing and exercising their rights."

The current situation carries echoes of that earlier conflict, raising questions about whether Amazon is violating company policy itself by potentially retaliating against employees for protected political speech. The SOCR, a local government agency that enforces laws against employment discrimination, is being asked to investigate whether Amazon's actions constitute unlawful retaliation1

1

.

Broader Backlash Against Data Center Buildout

The Amazon case represents the sharpest sign yet that opposition to AI's power-hungry infrastructure has moved from local zoning battles into the heart of Big Tech companies themselves. Grassroots groups blocked or delayed 75 data center projects worth a combined $130 billion in the first quarter of 2026 alone, with the number of active campaign groups more than doubling to 833 across 49 states4

4

. Complaints focus on higher electricity bills, heavy water use, and constant low-frequency noise that residents say is disrupting their communities.

What makes this movement particularly significant is its bipartisan nature. A US conservative group is now staging a "Nationwide Day of Protest against the unchecked and unwanted expansion of AI data centers," marking a rare moment when climate activists and the populist right align against the same target4

4

. When opposition crosses traditional political lines, it signals a shift from fringe concern to mainstream political force.

Meanwhile, federal regulators are moving in the opposite direction, fast-tracking data center grid connections with the goal of clearing power requests in about 90 days. The energy secretary has framed this speed as essential to competing with China, creating a direct collision between grassroots, bipartisan resistance and federal policy designed to accelerate buildout4

4

. For tech workers who testified at Seattle City Council, this tension now plays out in their own employment status, making the outcome of Amazon's investigation a potential template for how other companies handle employee dissent over AI infrastructure.