205 A.D.3d 485
N.Y. App. Div.2022Background
- The People of the State of New York (Attorney General) sued Amazon alleging repeated failures to implement reasonable COVID‑19 health and safety measures at two facilities (JFK8 fulfillment center and DBK1 delivery station) and alleged retaliation against employees who complained.
- Causes of action included Labor Law § 200 (general duty to provide safe workplace), and retaliation claims under Labor Law §§ 215 and 740.
- Supreme Court (trial court) denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss; Amazon appealed.
- The Appellate Division reversed and granted the motion to dismiss the retaliation claims as preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), finding the employee protests were concerted activity protected by the NLRA.
- The court held the local‑interest exception to Garmon preemption did not apply because essentially the same allegations were before the NLRB, posing a substantial risk of interference with federal jurisdiction.
- The § 200 injunctive claim seeking enforcement of withdrawn State COVID guidance was dismissed as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §§ 215 and 740 retaliation claims are preempted by the NLRA | The state may enforce protections against retaliation for safety complaints under state Labor Law | Employee protests and strikes were concerted activity covered by the NLRA, so state law claims are preempted | Preempted: retaliation claims dismissed because they plainly related to NLRA‑protected concerted activity (Garmon) |
| Whether the local‑interest exception to Garmon applies | NY has a deeply rooted interest in protecting employee safety and preventing retaliation, which could justify state adjudication | Federal preemption governs when conduct is clearly covered; exception should not apply given NLRB involvement | Exception inapplicable here — NLRB proceeding pending; risk of conflicting rulings warrants dismissal |
| Whether the presence of an NLRB proceeding affects preemption analysis | State enforcement can proceed concurrently in some circumstances | Concurrent state adjudication would interfere with NLRB jurisdiction and invite inconsistent outcomes | Because an NLRB proceeding addressing essentially the same allegations exists, state claims should be deferred/dismissed |
| Whether the § 200 claim requesting injunctive relief to enforce State COVID guidance is viable | The AG can seek injunctions requiring workplace safety measures consistent with State guidance | State guidance was withdrawn; injunction would enforce nonexistent guidance | Moot: claim for prospective injunctive relief dismissed because the public‑health guidance sought to be enforced has been withdrawn |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoesten v. Best, 34 A.D.3d 143 (1st Dept 2006) (concerted employee activity can constitute NLRA‑protected mutual aid or protection)
- San Diego Bldg. Trades Council, Millmen's Union, Local 2020 v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (state regulation or adjudication is preempted when it concerns conduct clearly protected or prohibited by the NLRA)
- Local 926, Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs., AFL‑CIO v. Jones, 460 U.S. 669 (1983) (pending NLRB proceedings create a substantial risk of interference from concurrent state adjudication)
- Brown v. Hotel & Rest. Empls. & Bartenders Int'l Union Local 54, 468 U.S. 491 (1984) (limits on Garmon preemption exceptions; local‑interest exception not available where conduct is clearly covered by NLRA)