Skip to main content

Amazon Hit With Lawsuit Over Coronavirus Risk To Employees


Last week, Amazon was hit with a lawsuit in regard to claims that the company had not taken adequate steps to protect its employees from the coronavirus.

In the lawsuit, filed by four warehouse workers, allegations are made that the company failed to follow public health guidelines and put its workers in a position to contract the coronavirus by setting “oppressive and dangerous” quotas and discipline policies.  Interesting note though, the lawsuit does not seek a monetary award but rather an injunction that Amazon adhere to public safety guidelines.  (In broad terms, an injunction is a court order compelling a party to do or not do a specific thing.  In this case, the injunction, should it be granted, would likely compel Amazon to adhere to public safety requirements going forward.)  This is different from other coronavirus related lawsuits filed against employers of late which have primarily sought a monetary award.  The fact that this lawsuit against Amazon “only” seeks an injunction is not necessarily indicative of how it might play out, however.

This lawsuit comes on the heels of recent strikes, sick outs, protests, and other related measures taken by employees and worker advocacy groups that have sought to call attention to the plight facing many workers that run a high risk of being exposed to the coronavirus in the workplace.  While I think there is good money on similar cases being filed against employers in the coming weeks, I would be interested to see whether those potentially incoming lawsuits would also include requests for injunctive relief.


For additional information as to the lawsuit:  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-03/amazon-warehouse-employees-sue-over-virus-brought-home-from-work?sref=p6AmiyaF

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more