51 F.4th 491
2d Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiffs are Amazon JFK8 warehouse workers and household members who sued over COVID-19 workplace policies, alleging unsafe conditions (incentivized productivity/TOT rules, inadequate social distancing, poor contact tracing, delayed/obstructed COVID-19 sick leave, and inadequate cleaning/closures).
- Claims: public nuisance; breach of duty to protect employee health and safety under N.Y. Labor Law § 200 (seeking injunctive/declaratory relief); violations of N.Y. Labor Law § 191 for failure to timely/pay COVID-19 sick leave (damages and injunctive relief).
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint: it invoked the primary jurisdiction doctrine (deferring to OSHA) to dismiss the public nuisance and § 200 claims (without prejudice) and dismissed § 191 claims with prejudice (holding COVID-19 leave is not § 191 “wages”), plus alternative rulings (no special injury for nuisance; Workers’ Comp exclusivity barred some relief).
- On appeal the Second Circuit rejected OSHA deference, held the nuisance claim deficient for lack of special injury, held Workers’ Comp § 11 does not bar injunctive § 200 relief, and held COVID-19 leave payments are not “wages” under § 191.
- Result: Affirmed dismissal of public nuisance and § 191 claims; vacated dismissal of § 200 claim and remanded for further proceedings on declaratory/injunctive relief; Judge Chin concurred in part and dissented as to the public nuisance holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of public nuisance and § 200 claims (NY Forward guidance rescinded) | Claims rely on NY Forward among other sources; rescission does not moot claims because § 200 and nuisance duties persist | Guidance rescission moots claims premised on that guidance | Not moot — live controversy remains; plaintiffs rely on multiple sources beyond rescinded guidance |
| Primary jurisdiction / deference to OSHA | Court can decide state-law tort and § 200 claims without deferring to OSHA; OSHA expertise not materially necessary | OSHA has technical/policy expertise; primary jurisdiction appropriate | Primary jurisdiction does not apply; questions are within judicial competence and OSHA would not materially aid resolution |
| Public nuisance — special-injury requirement under NY law | Workers and household members suffer distinct harms (forced exposure, inability to avoid workplace) — special injury exists | Harm is shared with community at large; plaintiffs’ harms differ only in degree, not kind | No special injury pleaded; dismissal affirmed for failure to allege injury different in kind |
| Whether N.Y. Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 bars injunctive relief under NYLL § 200 | § 11 covers monetary remedies only; it does not preclude equitable injunctive relief under § 200 | § 11’s “any other liability whatsoever” language bars employer suits including injunctions | § 11 does not bar injunctive relief; exclusivity concerns monetary compensation, not forward‑looking equitable relief; § 200 claim for injunction survives |
| Whether COVID-19 sick leave pay are “wages” under NYLL § 191 | Leave pay is a statutory entitlement and must be paid timely; treating it as non‑wages undermines Leave Law’s purpose | COVID-19 quarantine/isolation payments are benefits/wage supplements, not earnings for labor or services; § 191 governs frequency only for “wages” | COVID-19 leave payments are benefits, not “wages” under § 191; § 191 claim fails (plaintiffs may seek administrative relief via NYDOL) |
Key Cases Cited
- Benoit v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 959 F.3d 491 (2d Cir. 2020) (explains public nuisance special‑injury requirement)
- 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods v. Finlandia Ctr., 96 N.Y.2d 280 (N.Y. 2001) (New York formulation of private‑plaintiff special‑injury rule in public nuisance)
- Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2009) (public nuisance suit; degree vs. kind discussion)
- Ellis v. Tribune Television Co., 443 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006) (factors for applying primary jurisdiction)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. MV Nedlloyd, 817 F.2d 1022 (2d Cir. 1987) (case‑by‑case primary jurisdiction analysis)
- Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 (1993) (primary jurisdiction does not divest jurisdiction; court may stay or dismiss)
- In re World Trade Ctr. Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig., 758 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2014) (NYLL § 200 as codification of common‑law duty to provide safe workplace)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausible claims)