Case 1:20-cv-14306-RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 10/12/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`____________________________________
`DAVID J. BAILEY
`
`
`
`:
`270 James Street
`
`
`
`:
`Mount Ephraim, NJ 08059
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`:
`AMAZON.COM, INC. d/b/a
`
`:
`AMAZON.COM
`
`
`
`:
`410 Terry Avenue North
`
`
`:
`Seattle, WA 98108
`
`
`
`:
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`:
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.
`:
`202 Westlake Ave. N
`
`
`:
`Seattle, WA 98108
`
`
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`Defendants.
`
`
`:
`____________________________________:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DOCKET NO.:
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David J. Bailey (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff,” unless indicated otherwise), by and
`
`CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`through his undersigned counsel, hereby avers as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This action has been initiated by Plaintiff against Amazon.com, Inc. d/b/a
`
`1.
`
`Amazon.com and Amazon.com Services, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred
`
`to as
`
`“Defendants”) for violations of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”
`
`– N.J.S.A. §§ 34:19-1, et seq.). Plaintiff asserts he was terminated from his employment with
`
`Defendants for retaliatory reasons. As a direct consequence of Defendants’ unlawful actions,
`
`Plaintiff seeks damages as set forth herein.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff resides in and is a citizen of New Jersey.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-14306-RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 10/12/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 2
`
`3.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. d/b/a Amazon and Amazon.com Services, Inc. are incorporated
`
`under the laws of Delaware with headquarters and/or principal places of business in Washington,
`
`rendering them citizens of Delaware and Washington.
`
`4.
`
`The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has original subject
`
`matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity
`
`of citizenship, as Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey, Defendants are citizens of Seattle and
`
`Delaware, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`5.
`
`This Court may properly maintain personal jurisdiction over Defendants because
`
`Defendants’ contacts with this state and this judicial district are sufficient for the exercise of
`
`jurisdiction in order to comply with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,
`
`satisfying the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Int’l Shoe Co. v.
`
`Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), and its progeny.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is properly laid in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1391(b)(1) and
`
`(b)(2), because Plaintiff worked for Defendants in New Jersey and all actions underlying this case
`
`occurred in New Jersey.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is further appropriate in this Venue as Plaintiff was hired through and
`
`performed work solely for Defendants in their 281 Benigno Boulevard, Bellmawr, New Jersey
`
`facility.
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
`
`full.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff is an adult individual with an address as set forth in the above caption.
`
`10.
`
`Upon information and belief, Amazon.com, Inc. d/b/a Amazon.com is an online
`
`retailer that offers a wide range of products, including books, music, videotapes, computers,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-14306-RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 10/12/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 3
`
`electronics, home and garden, and numerous other products, with headquarters located at the
`
`above-captioned address.
`
`11.
`
`Upon information and belief, Amazon.com Services, Inc. is a multinational
`
`technology company that focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, artificial
`
`intelligence implementation, and facilities management services, with headquarters located at the
`
`above-captioned address. Plaintiff’s paystubs and W-2 forms list Amazon.com Services, Inc. as
`
`his employer located at that address.
`
`12.
`
`Because of their interrelation of operations, common ownership or management,
`
`centralized control of labor relations, common ownership or financial controls, and other factors
`
`Defendants are sufficiently interrelated and integrated in their activities, labor relations,
`
`ownership, and management that they made be treated as a single and/or joint employer for
`
`purposes of the instant action.
`
`13.
`
`At all times relevant herein, Defendants acted by and through their agents, servants
`
`and employees, each of whom acted at all times relevant herein in the course and scope of their
`
`employment with and for the Defendants.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`14.
`
`The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
`
`full.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff was hired by Defendants on or about June 26, 2019 as a Learning
`
`Ambassador for Defendants’ 281 Benigno Boulevard, Bellmawr, New Jersey facility.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff was primarily supervised by Area Manager, Paul Zirbser (hereinafter
`
`“Zirbser”).
`
`17.
`
`Throughout his tenure with Defendants, Plaintiff was a hard-working employee
`
`who performed his job well.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-14306-RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 10/12/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 4
`
`18.
`
`As a Learning Ambassador for Defendants’ Bellmawr, New Jersey facility,
`
`Plaintiff assisted floor managers, trained new associates, ensured that existing associates
`
`maintained quality standards, and enforced Amazon protocols.
`
`19.
`
`As a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic, on or about March 21, 2020, New
`
`Jersey Governor Phillip D. Murphy (hereinafter “Governor Murphy”), signed Executive Order
`
`No. 107, which ordered steps to mitigate the community spread of COVID-19, including but not
`
`limited to “practic[ing] social distancing and stay[ing] six feet apart whenever practicable.”
`
`20.
`
`Thereafter, on or about April 8, 2020, Governor Murphy, signed Executive Order
`
`No. 122, mandating that all manufacturing and warehousing businesses “require individuals to
`
`maintain six feet or more distance between them wherever possible” and “require workers and
`
`visitors to wear cloth face coverings, in accordance with CDC recommendations. . . [and] gloves,
`
`while on the premises.”
`
`21.
`
`Executive Order No. 122 further provides that “[i]t shall be the duty of every person
`
`or entity in this State or doing business in this State . . . to cooperate fully in all matters concerning
`
`this Executive Order” or risk being subjected to all available penalties under the law, including
`
`fines and/or imprisonment, pursuant to New Jersey Revised Statutes § App. A:9-49 (2013).
`
`22.
`
` In or about March and April of 2020, in compliance with the aforesaid New Jersey
`
`State laws, Defendants instituted certain safety protocols for its employees, including but not
`
`limited to requiring masks for all employees and maintaining six feet or more distance between
`
`employees working and/or in Defendants facilities.
`
`23.
`
`As a Learning Ambassador, Plaintiff was tasked with enforcing Defendants’
`
`aforesaid safety protocols in the facility during his shifts. Defendants advised Plaintiff that these
`
`protocols were to be strictly enforced and that violators would be subjected to suspension or even
`
`termination.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-14306-RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 10/12/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 5
`
`24. While strictly enforcing Defendants’ aforesaid safety and social distancing
`
`protocols, Plaintiff observed
`
`that Shift Manager, Kristopher Lauderdale
`
`(hereinafter
`
`“Lauderdale”) repeatedly violated both New Jersey State COVID-19 mitigation laws/regulations
`
`and Defendants’ safety protocols by not wearing his mask (either at all or incorrectly) and not
`
`maintaining at least six feet distance from other employees.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff further observed that whenever another Learning Ambassador or
`
`employee reported Lauderdale for violating New Jersey State COVID-19 mitigation
`
`laws/regulations and Defendants’ safety protocols, the reporting/complaining employee would be
`
`written up and/or suspended by Defendants’ management for bogus reasons.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff himself had repeated informed Lauderdale that he was violating state
`
`COVID-19 mitigation laws and Defendants’ safety protocols on several occasions to no avail.
`
`27. What Plaintiff was experiencing was highly disturbing (with regard to the safety
`
`and health of Defendants’ employees during a global pandemic). COVID-19 related deaths and
`
`infections were continuing to rise unabated at this time, and Plaintiff was dismayed by Defendants’
`
`managements’ failure to properly enforce Governor Murphy’s emergency mandates and HR’s
`
`clear condonement of disciplining, suspending or terminating any employee who attempted to
`
`report Lauderdale or his aforesaid violations/illegal conduct.
`
`28.
`
`For example, in or about early August of 2020, Plaintiff was working his regular
`
`shift and observed that Lauderdale and another manager where standing and talking within just 2-
`
`3 feet of either. When Plaintiff advised Lauderdale and the other manager that they were not
`
`following mandated social distancing guidelines, Lauderdale ignored Plaintiff and visibly rolled
`
`his eyes.
`
`29.
`
`After Lauderdale rolled his eyes at Plaintiff’s reminder to follow safety/social
`
`distancing guidelines, Plaintiff walked over to another employee and expressed his frustration at
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-14306-RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 10/12/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 6
`
`Lauderdale’s disrespectful response to Plaintiff and failure to follow New Jersey State COVID-19
`
`mitigation laws/regulations and Defendants’ safety protocols.
`
`30.
`
`Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff made another walking pass by Lauderdale and noticed
`
`that he and the other manager were now talking within just a foot of each other and tauntingly
`
`watching Plaintiff. In frustration, Plaintiff mumbled “I can’t fucking even,” and walked away
`
`from Lauderdale.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff then filed a report with Defendants’ onsite Human Resources (“HR”)
`
`Department complaining of Lauderdale’s refusal to maintain at least a six-foot distance from other
`
`employees, which constituted a violation of New Jersey State COVID-19 mitigation
`
`laws/regulations, as well as Defendants’ safety protocols.
`
`32.
`
`Instead of properly investigating and/or addressing Plaintiff’s complaints of
`
`Defendants’ managements’ violations of state and/or federal regulations/laws, Plaintiff was placed
`
`on suspension for purportedly “threatening” Lauderdale, and then abruptly terminated just a few
`
`days later on or about August 15, 2020.
`
`33. While working for Defendants and following his termination, Plaintiff came to realize
`
`that Defendants operated their business unlawfully on a sustained and continued basis with regard to
`
`enforcing safety laws/regulations surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff also discovered that
`
`Lauderdale had been reported several times by several employees for violations of said
`
`laws/regulations but HR either ignored or refused to pass the complaints on to upper management.
`
`Such information came to Plaintiff through his own research, his own observations, directives he was
`
`given, and through interactions with coworkers and management.
`
`34.
`
`Defendants engaged in several violations of state and/or federal laws/regulations
`
`and/or crimes (directly, by way of conspiracy, and through acquiescence and/or ratification of such
`
`known unlawful conduct). Solely by way of notice herein and by way of examples (in a non-
`
`exhaustive list), such legal violations included but were not limited to:
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-14306-RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 10/12/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 7
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`
`
`Violations of several New Jersey State Executive Orders to protect the public
`health, safety, and welfare against the emergency created by COVID-19,
`including Executive Order Nos. 104-122; and
`
`Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”)/Department of
`Labor (“DOL”) violations.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff merely provides examples supra of factual and legal violations of
`
`regulations and laws. See, e.g., Durst v. FedEx Exp., No. 03–CV–5186 (JBS), 2005 WL 3534179,
`
`at *5 (D.N.J. 2005) (a plaintiff asserting a CEPA claim is not even required to cite to any laws for
`
`his or her reasonable belief of a legal violation during litigation; but rather, to set forth a
`
`communicated belief of something that was believed to be unlawful).1
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff was terminated shortly after making complaints to Defendants’
`
`management of illegal violations of several regulations and laws (as set forth supra), for what he
`
`reasonably believes to be pretextual reasons. In actuality, Plaintiff was terminated specifically
`
`because of his opposition to illegal practices of Defendants’ management, his refusal to overlook
`
`such unlawful acts, and in retaliation for complaining of/reporting same.
`
`COUNT I
`Violations of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”)
` (Wrongful Termination - Retaliation)
`-Against Both Defendants-
`
`The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein in their entirety as if set forth in
`
`37.
`
`full.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff was terminated for several instances of engaging in protected activity by
`
`making complaints and/or for objecting to unlawful actions in the workplace as outlined in
`
`significant detail in this Complaint.
`
`39.
`
`These actions as aforesaid constitute violations of CEPA.
`
`
`1 New Jersey's CEPA statute “has been described as the most far reaching ‘whistleblowing statute’ in the nation.”
`Bowen v. Parking Auth. of City of Camden, No. CIV. 00-5765 (JBS), 2003 WL 22145814, at *16 (D.N.J. 2003).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-14306-RBK-JS Document 1 Filed 10/12/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 8
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter an Order providing that:
`
`A.
`
`Defendants are to compensate Plaintiff, reimburse Plaintiff, and make Plaintiff
`
`whole for any and all pay and benefits Plaintiff would have received had it not been for
`
`Defendants’ illegal actions, including but not limited to back pay, front pay, salary, pay increases,
`
`bonuses, insurance, benefits, training, promotions, reinstatement, and seniority.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff is to be awarded punitive damages, as permitted by applicable law, in an
`
`amount believed by the Court or trier of fact to be appropriate to punish Defendants for their
`
`willful, deliberate, malicious and outrageous conduct and to deter Defendants or other employers
`
`from engaging in such misconduct in the future;
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff is to be accorded other equitable and legal relief as the Court deems just,
`
`proper, and appropriate (including but not limited to damages for emotional distress/pain and
`
`suffering);
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff is to be awarded the costs and expenses of this action and reasonable
`
`attorney’s fees as provided by applicable federal and state law; and
`
`E.
`
`Plaintiff is to be given a trial by jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KARPF, KARPF & CERUTTI, P.C.
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ari R. Karpf, Esq.
`3331 Street Road
`Two Greenwood Square, Suite 128
`Bensalem, PA 19020
`(215) 639-0801
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 12, 2020
`
`
`
`8
`
`