Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Employment Employment Law Lawyer Directory

If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Defendant's Attorney: Jason C. Schwartz, Lucas C. Townsend, Lochlan F. Shelfer and Avi Weitzman and Zainab N. Ahmad

Description: Brooklyn, New York employment law lawyers represented Plaintiffs who sued Defendant on Wage and Act Violation and other theories.

This case involves claims brought by workers at Amazon’s
JFK8 fulfillment center and members of the workers’ households in
connection with the COVID-19 policies, practices, and procedures at
JFK8. In their amended complaint Plaintiffs allege causes of action for
public nuisance, breach of the duty to protect the health and safety of
employees under New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) § 200, violation of
NYLL § 191 for failure to pay, on time and in full, COVID-19 sick leave
under New York’s COVID-19 sick leave law, and injunctive relief
against future violations of NYLL § 191. The United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brian M. Cogan, Judge)
dismissed Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, relying on the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction, as well as alternative grounds, to dispose of the
public nuisance and NYLL § 200 claims, and dismissing Plaintiffs’
§ 191 claim for failure to state a claim for relief based on COVID-19
sick leave payments not falling within § 191’s definition of “wages.”
Plaintiffs now appeal. First, we reject Amazon’s contention that we
should partially dismiss this appeal as moot. Second, we agree with
Plaintiffs that the district court wrongly applied the primary
jurisdiction doctrine to their public nuisance and NYLL § 200 claims.
Ultimately, however, only their § 200 claim survives. Accordingly,
we hold: (1) Plaintiffs’ public nuisance and NYLL § 200 claims are not
moot; (2) the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply to
Plaintiffs’ public nuisance or NYLL § 200 claims; (3) Plaintiffs fail to
state a claim for public nuisance under New York law because they
do not allege a special injury; (4) Section 11 of the New York Workers’
Compensation Law does not preclude injunctive relief under NYLL
§ 200; and (5) COVID-19 sick leave payments are not “wages” under
NYLL § 191. We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of
Plaintiffs’ public nuisance and NYLL § 191 claims; and we VACATE
the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ NYLL § 200 claim and
REMAND to the district court for further proceedings on that claim.

Outcome: In sum, we hold as follows:

(1) Plaintiffs’ public nuisance and NYLL § 200 claims are not
moot.
(2) The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply to
Plaintiffs’ public nuisance or NYLL § 200 claims.
69
(3) Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for public nuisance under
New York law because they do not allege a special injury.
(4) Section 11 of the New York Workers’ Compensation Law
does not preclude injunctive relief under NYLL § 200.
(5) Leave Law payments are not “wages” for purposes of
NYLL § 191.

We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’
public nuisance claim and NYLL § 191 claims for damages and
injunctive relief; and we VACATE the district court’s dismissal of
Plaintiffs’ NYLL § 200 claim seeking a declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief and REMAND to the district court for further
proceedings on that claim.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: