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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more