Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 1438
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`----------------------------------------------------------x
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-2468-BMC
`
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`::::::::::::::
`
`DERRICK PALMER, KENDIA MESIDOR,
`BENITA ROUSE, ALEXANDER ROUSE,
`BARBARA CHANDLER, LUIS PELLOT-
`CHANDLER, and DEASAHNI BERNARD,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`----------------------------------------------------------x
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 1439
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Section 200 And Public-Nuisance Claims
`Because OSHA Has Primary Jurisdiction Over Workplace Safety ....................... 3
`
`Plaintiffs’ Requests For Injunctive Relief Are Moot And Plaintiffs Lack Standing
`To Seek Injunctive Relief With Respect To Amazon’s Productivity Policies ...... 8
`
`III.
`
`Plaintiffs Fail To State A Section 200 Claim......................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The OSH Act Preempts Plaintiffs’ Section 200 Claim ............................ 10
`
`Plaintiffs Fail To Plausibly Allege That Amazon’s Practices
`Caused Their Risk Of Exposure To COVID-19 ...................................... 11
`
`IV.
`
`Plaintiffs Fail To State A Public-Nuisance Claim ............................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot Bring A Private Action For Public Nuisance .............. 14
`
`Plaintiffs Do Not Allege Interference With Any Public Right ................ 17
`
`Plaintiffs Do Not Plausibly Allege Actual Or Proximate Cause ............. 18
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`The Court Should Dismiss Employee-Plaintiffs’ Public-Nuisance And Section
`200 Claims Because They Are Barred By New York’s Workers’ Compensation
`Statute .................................................................................................................. 19
`
`The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Putative Class Claims For Unpaid Or
`Untimely Paid Wages Under Section 191 ........................................................... 21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Quarantine Benefits And Supplemental Pay Are Not “Wages”
`Under Section 191.................................................................................... 22
`
`Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Challenge Hypothetical Future
`Underpayments ........................................................................................ 24
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot Bring A Section 191 Claim Based On A
`Purported Statutory Right, As Opposed To A Contractual Right ............ 25
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 25
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 1440
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Ctr., Inc.,
`96 N.Y.2d 280 (2001) ............................................................................................14, 15, 16, 17
`
`A.S.M. v. Warden, Stewart Cty. Detention Ctr.,
`No. 7:20-cv-62, 2020 WL 2988307 (M.D. Ga. June 3, 2020) ...................................................7
`
`Acevedo v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y.,
`596 N.Y.S.2d 68 (1st App. Div. 1993) ....................................................................................20
`
`In re AFL-CIO,
`No. 20-1158, 2020 WL 3125324 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 2020) .....................................................5
`
`Andryeyeva v. N.Y. Health Care, Inc.,
`33 N.Y.3d 152 (2019) ..............................................................................................................23
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .......................................................................................................3, 14, 19
`
`Ass’n of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO v. Huerta,
`785 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................7
`
`Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHRC,
`430 U.S. 442 (1977) .................................................................................................................11
`
`In re Babb,
`264 N.Y. 357 (1934) ................................................................................................................21
`
`Bardere v. Zafir,
`477 N.Y.S.2d 131 (1st App. Div. 1984) ..................................................................................20
`
`Becker v. Schwartz,
`46 N.Y.2d 401 (1978) ..............................................................................................................11
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .......................................................................................................3, 14, 19
`
`Bernhardt v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`No. 1:00-cv-4042, 2000 WL 1738645 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2000) ............................................6
`
`BHC Nw. Psychiatric Hosp., LLC v. Sec’y of Labor,
`951 F.3d 558 (D.C. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................11
`
`Burlew v. Am. Mut. Ins.,
`63 N.Y.2d 412 (1984) ..............................................................................................................21
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 1441
`
`
`
`Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindner,
`59 N.Y.2d 314 (1983) ..............................................................................................................14
`
`Castillo v. Amjack Leasing Corp.,
`924 N.Y.S.2d 156 (2d App. Div. 2011) ...................................................................................13
`
`Chevron Corp. v. Donziger,
`833 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016).......................................................................................................24
`
`City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
`461 U.S. 95 (1983) .....................................................................................................................9
`
`City of Pontiac Policemen’s & Firemen’s Ret. Sys. v. UBS AG,
`752 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2014).......................................................................................................3
`
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,
`568 U.S. 398 (2013) .................................................................................................................25
`
`Crawford v. Coram Fire Dist.,
`No. 12-cv-3850, 2015 WL 10044273 (E.D.N.Y. May 4, 2015) ..............................................22
`
`DHS v. MacLean,
`574 U.S. 383 (2015) .................................................................................................................21
`
`Diamond v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`20 Cal. App. 3d 374 (1971) .....................................................................................................18
`
`Duffy v. Baldwin,
`124 N.Y.S.3d 110 (3d App. Div. 2020) ...................................................................................15
`
`Ebaseh-Onofa v. McAllen Hosps., LP,
`No. 13-14-319-CV, 2015 WL 2452701 (Tex. App. May 21, 2015) ........................................12
`
`Ellis v. Tribune Television Co.,
`443 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006).....................................................................................................4, 5
`
`FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
`567 U.S. 239 (2012) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Fresh Air for the Eastside, Inc. v. Waste Mgmt. of N.Y., LLC,
`405 F. Supp. 3d 408 (W.D.N.Y. 2019) ....................................................................................14
`
`Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n,
`505 U.S. 88 (1992) .............................................................................................................10, 11
`
`Greenberg v. Sutter,
`173 Misc. 2d 774 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997) ...................................................................................21
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 1442
`
`
`
`Haire v. Bonelli,
`870 N.Y.S.2d 591 (3d App. Div. 2008) ...................................................................................17
`
`Hartnett v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.,
`86 N.Y.2d 438 (1995) ..............................................................................................................20
`
`Hunter v. Planned Bldg. Servs., Inc.,
`No. 715053/2017, 2018 WL 3392476 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 20, 2018).....................................25
`
`Hussain v. Pakistan Int’l Airlines Corp.,
`No. 11-cv-932, 2012 WL 5289541 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2012) ................................................25
`
`Jacobsen v. N.Y.C. Health and Hosps. Corp.,
`No. 12-cv-7460, 2013 WL 4565037 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2013)..............................................11
`
`Krenger v. Pa. R. Co.,
`174 F.2d 556 (2d Cir. 1949).....................................................................................................20
`
`Lalima v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y.,
`58 N.Y.S.3d 66 (2d App. Div. 2017) .......................................................................................21
`
`In re Lead Paint Litig.,
`191 N.J. 405 (2007) .................................................................................................................18
`
`Leo v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`538 N.Y.S.2d 844 (2d App. Div. 1989) .............................................................................14, 16
`
`Litras v. PVM Int’l Corp.,
`No. 11-cv-5695, 2013 WL 4118482 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2013) .............................................22
`
`Mendoza v. Perez,
`754 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................7
`
`Miranda v. Bomel Constr. Co.,
`187 Cal. App. 4th 1326 (2010) ................................................................................................19
`
`Monaghan v. Roman Catholic Dioceses of Rockville Ctr.,
`85 N.Y.S.3d 475 (2d App. Div. 2018) .....................................................................................17
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms,
`561 U.S. 139 (2010) .................................................................................................................24
`
`Montauk Oil Transp. Corp. v. Tug El Zorro Grande,
`54 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 1995).......................................................................................................20
`
`Myers v. Hertz Corp.,
`624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010).....................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 1443
`
`
`
`Noreen v. William Vogel & Bros.,
`231 N.Y. 317 (1921) ................................................................................................................20
`
`Peterson v. Silverado Senior Living, Inc.,
`790 F. App’x 614 (5th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................12
`
`Phillips v. Max Finkelstein, Inc.,
`115 N.Y.S.3d 866 (N.Y. Cty. Ct. 2019)...................................................................................25
`
`Poppo v. Aon Risk Servs. Co. of N.Y.,
`No. 00-cv-4165, 2001 WL 392543 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2001) ................................................24
`
`Raritan Dev. Corp. v. Silva,
`91 N.Y.2d 98 (1997) ................................................................................................................23
`
`Ret. Sys. v. Dole Food Co.,
`969 F.2d 1430 (2d Cir. 1992).....................................................................................................8
`
`Rincon v. Covidien,
`No. 16-CV-10033, 2017 WL 2242969 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2017) ....................................12, 13
`
`Rios v. Metro. Transp. Auth.,
`No. 13206-03, 2004 WL 3093154
`(N.Y. Sup. Ct. Richmond Cty. Dec. 22, 2004) ..........................................................................7
`
`Rocha v. GRT Constr. of N.Y.,
`44 N.Y.S.3d 149 (2d. App. Div. 2016) ....................................................................................11
`
`Rural Cmty. Workers All. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc.,
`No. 20-CV-6063, 2020 WL 2145350 (W.D. Mo. May 5, 2020) .................................3, 6, 9, 17
`
`SeaWorld of Fla., LLC v. Perez,
`748 F.3d 1202 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................4
`
`Secretary v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`No. 09-1013, 2011 WL 12678760 (O.S.H.R.C. Apr. 5, 2011) ..................................................4
`
`Shain v. Ellison,
`356 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2004).......................................................................................................9
`
`Shanahan v. Monarch Eng’g Co.,
`219 N.Y. 469 (1916) ..........................................................................................................19, 21
`
`Sosnowy v. A. Perri Farms, Inc.,
`764 F. Supp. 2d 457 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) .....................................................................................23
`
`South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom,
`140 S. Ct. 1613 (2020) ...............................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 1444
`
`
`
`People ex rel. Spitzer v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.,
`761 N.Y.S.2d 192 (1st App. Div. 2003) ..................................................................................18
`
`Tierney v. Capricorn Inv’rs, L.P.,
`592 N.Y.S.2d 700 (1st App. Div. 1993) ..................................................................................25
`
`Truelove v. Ne. Capital & Advisory, Inc.,
`95 N.Y.2d 220 (2000) ..............................................................................................................24
`
`UCP-Bayview Nursing Home v. Novello,
`2 A.D.3d 643 (2d App. Div. 2003) ............................................................................................7
`
`United States v. Santiago,
`No. 92-cr-463, 2020 WL 2475068 (E.D.N.Y. May 13, 2020) .................................................13
`
`United States v. Wragg,
`No. 15-cr-398, 2020 WL 4015204 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2020) .....................................................7
`
`Vega v. CM & Assocs. Constr. Mgmt., LLC,
`107 N.Y.S.3d 286 (1st App. Div. 2019) ..................................................................................25
`
`Warth v. Seldin,
`422 U.S. 490 (1975) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`WMATA v. Johnson,
`467 U.S. 925 (1984) .................................................................................................................19
`
`Yurman v. Printex Packaging Corp.,
`No. 06-cv-4906, 2008 WL 11417672 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2008) ...........................................24
`
`Statutes
`
`5 U.S.C. § 553 ..................................................................................................................................6
`
`29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4) ....................................................................................................................11
`
`29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1) .................................................................................................................4, 11
`
`29 U.S.C. § 657(f) ............................................................................................................................6
`
`29 U.S.C. §§ 660–661 ......................................................................................................................5
`
`29 U.S.C. § 667(a)–(b) ...................................................................................................................10
`
`29 U.S.C. § 667(b) .........................................................................................................................10
`
`Laws of New York, 1914 vol. I 216 ..............................................................................................21
`
`Laws of New York, 1916 vol. III 2035 ..........................................................................................21
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 1445
`
`
`
`N.Y. A.P.A. Law § 102(2)(b)(iv).....................................................................................................7
`
`N.Y. A.P.A. Law § 202 ....................................................................................................................6
`
`N.Y. Lab. Law § 27-a ....................................................................................................................10
`
`N.Y. Lab. Law § 190 .....................................................................................................................22
`
`N.Y. Lab. Law § 190(1) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`N.Y. Lab. Law § 198-c ............................................................................................................22, 24
`
`N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 11 ....................................................................................................19
`
`Other Authorities
`
`N.Y. Dep’t of Health, Interim Guidance for the Wholesale Trade Sector During
`the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency ..................................................................................7
`
`N.Y. Dep’t of Labor, Request for Opinion, Personal/Sick/Vacation Policy
`(Mar. 11, 2010) ........................................................................................................................23
`
`New York State, New York Paid Family Leave COVID-19: Frequently Asked
`Questions..................................................................................................................................23
`
`New York State Plan, OSHA .........................................................................................................10
`
`NYC Health, COVID 19: Data (last visited Aug. 10, 2020) .........................................................12
`
`OSHA, COVID-19 Publications ......................................................................................................5
`
`OSHA, Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19 ...........................................................7
`
`Treatises
`
`Black’s Law Dictionary (2d ed. 1910) ...........................................................................................20
`
`Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821C(1) .....................................................................................15
`
`Regulations
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1903.12 .........................................................................................................................6
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.132 .................................................................................................................4, 18
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.134 .................................................................................................................4, 10
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.141 .................................................................................................................4, 10
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 1446
`
`
`
`Respiratory Protection Final Rule, 63 Fed. Reg. 1152 (Jan. 8, 1998) ..........................................10
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 10 of 35 PageID #: 1447
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint asks this Court to wade deeply into the rapidly changing
`
`standards of COVID-19 workplace safety, enforce non-binding agency guidance as if it were law,
`
`and manage the day-to-day operations and Human Resources practices of Amazon’s JFK8 facility.
`
`In an attempt to exploit a global pandemic to further a broader agenda, Plaintiffs would have this
`
`Court mandate, for example, that Amazon communicate the suspension of its productivity
`
`requirements in writing (rather than verbally), and give employees “immediate access” to 48 hours
`
`of paid time off, “even if they have not yet accrued all 48 hours.” Am. Compl. ¶ 362(c)(ii),
`
`(c)(viii). Because the Amended Complaint is jurisdictionally infirm and fails to state any viable
`
`claim, this Court should decline Plaintiffs’ invitation to become an arbiter of workplace-safety
`
`standards during the pandemic and should dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice.
`
`As a threshold matter, this Court is not the proper forum in which to resolve workplace-
`
`safety matters in the first instance. It is the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and
`
`Health Administration (“OSHA”) that has the special expertise, competence, and authority to
`
`resolve whether, for example, Amazon “sufficiently” staggers breaks to promote social distancing
`
`and provides employees with “adequate” time and supplies to clean and sanitize their own
`
`workstations. Am. Compl. ¶ 326. This Court should reject Plaintiffs’ attempt to circumvent
`
`OSHA’s jurisdiction, and instead should defer to that agency under the primary-jurisdiction
`
`doctrine. Indeed, OSHA recently urged another federal court to “decline Plaintiffs’ extraordinary
`
`invitation to use judicial intervention to highjack the Secretary’s enforcement discretion and
`
`priorities and second-guess OSHA’s judgment as it relates to occupational health and safety
`
`conditions.” Dep’t of Labor Br. 10, Does v. Scalia, No. 3:20-cv-1260, ECF No. 24 (M.D. Pa.
`
`July 28, 2020) (attached as Ex. A). Moreover, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint itself demonstrates
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 11 of 35 PageID #: 1448
`
`
`
`that their claims for injunctive relief are moot, and that they lack standing to pursue many of them.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Section 200 claim fails for two additional reasons. First, the claim is preempted
`
`by the Occupational Safety and Health (“OSH”) Act. Second, Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege
`
`that Amazon’s workplace practices somehow uniquely create a risk of contracting COVID-19.
`
`Instead, Plaintiffs catalog a variety of safety measures taken by Amazon, while at the same time
`
`identifying risks of exposure outside of work, including their use of sometimes congested New
`
`York City public transportation. Plaintiffs’ allegations fail to plausibly connect Amazon’s policies
`
`to any undue risk of contracting COVID-19 or to rule out Plaintiffs’ own outside-of-work conduct
`
`as equally plausible causes of any risk of infection, as required to survive a motion to dismiss.
`
`Plaintiffs’ public-nuisance claim is similarly deficient. Plaintiffs fail to allege harm
`
`different in kind, as opposed to degree, necessary for private plaintiffs to usurp the government’s
`
`role and pursue a public-nuisance claim. And Plaintiffs do not identify any authority supporting
`
`the novel and unsupportable proposition that employment practices at a private facility could ever
`
`constitute a public nuisance. Additionally, given the extent of the outbreak in New York, Plaintiffs
`
`cannot plausibly allege that Amazon’s policies cause the public’s risk of exposure to the disease.
`
`Finally, Plaintiffs have added two new putative class claims under Labor Law Section 191,
`
`seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged failures to timely pay for quarantine leave. But
`
`New York law exempts benefits like these from Section 191 by excluding them from the statutory
`
`definition of “wages.” See N.Y. Lab. Law § 190(1). And Article III precludes Plaintiffs from
`
`seeking an injunction based on the speculative possibility that they might at some point qualify
`
`(initially, or again) for quarantine leave. Nor do Plaintiffs plead other basic facts necessary to
`
`support these claims, such as whether they have a contractual, as opposed to statutory, entitlement
`
`to quarantine-leave benefits, or whether they were subject to a quarantine order and thus entitled
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 12 of 35 PageID #: 1449
`
`
`
`to benefits in the first place.
`
`The Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice. See City of Pontiac
`
`Policemen’s & Firemen’s Ret. Sys. v. UBS AG, 752 F.3d 173, 188 (2d Cir. 2014) (plaintiffs
`
`“already had one opportunity to amend their complaint” and it was “unlikely that the deficiencies
`
`raised . . . were unforeseen by plaintiffs when they amended”).
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible
`
`on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
`
`U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A court generally “must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
`
`complaint,” but that rule is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Id. at 678.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Section 200 And Public-Nuisance Claims Because
`OSHA Has Primary Jurisdiction Over Workplace Safety.
`
`a. This Court should decline to take up Plaintiffs’ Section 200 and public-nuisance claims
`
`because of the primary-jurisdiction doctrine. See Rural Cmty. Workers All. v. Smithfield Foods,
`
`Inc., No. 20-CV-6063, 2020 WL 2145350 (W.D. Mo. May 5, 2020) (dismissing similar claims
`
`under the primary-jurisdiction doctrine). Plaintiffs challenge Amazon’s workplace response to the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic, but the evaluation of employers’ workplace-safety policies is delegated in
`
`the first instance to OSHA—the expert federal agency with authority and expertise in workplace
`
`safety. As a California court recently concluded in denying emergency relief in a similar suit
`
`seeking an injunction against Amazon, “the preferable approach here is for the Court to defer to
`
`[the California OSHA and other agencies’] expertise and authority.” Brent v. AmazonFresh LLC,
`
`No. CGC-20-584828, at 9, 12 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 27, 2020) (attached as Ex. B). In the same
`
`way, this Court should defer to OSHA.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 13 of 35 PageID #: 1450
`
`
`
`The primary-jurisdiction doctrine seeks to “promot[e] proper relationships between the
`
`courts and administrative agencies charged with particular regulatory duties.” Ellis v. Tribune
`
`Television Co., 443 F.3d 71, 81 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). “Recourse to the doctrine of
`
`primary jurisdiction is thus appropriate whenever enforcement of [a] claim requires the resolution
`
`of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an
`
`administrative body.” Id. To determine whether the doctrine applies, courts consider four factors:
`
`(1) whether the question at issue is within the conventional experience of judges or
`whether it involves technical or policy considerations within the agency’s particular
`field of expertise; (2) whether the question at issue is particularly within the
`agency’s discretion; (3) whether there exists a substantial danger of inconsistent
`rulings; and (4) whether a prior application to the agency has been made.
`
`Id. at 82–83. Here, the test weighs strongly in favor of deferring to OSHA’s primary jurisdiction.
`
`First, this lawsuit “involve[s] technical or policy considerations within [OSHA’s] field of
`
`expertise.” Id. at 83. OSHA has a “strategy for combatting the danger of COVID-19 in the
`
`workplace” that involves enforcing “existing rules and statutory requirements” and “rapid, flexible
`
`guidance.” ECF No. 36-1 (Dep’t of Labor Br. 1, In re AFL-CIO, No. 20-1158 (D.C. Cir. May 29,
`
`2020) (“DOL Br.”)). OSHA already “impose[s] enforceable obligations on employers to protect
`
`workers from COVID-19” involving “respiratory protection, personal protective equipment
`
`[(“PPE”)], and sanitation.” Id. at 21; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132 (PPE); id. § 1910.134
`
`(airborne contaminants); id. § 1910.141 (sanitation). And OSHA has stated that the OSH Act’s
`
`General Duty Clause, 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1), applies to “employers who fail to take preventative
`
`measures against COVID-19.” DOL Br. 25.1 In fact, Plaintiffs’ attorneys conceded in a separate
`
`
`1 OSHA historically has applied the General Duty Clause to rapidly evolving workplace-safety
`situations. See, e.g., SeaWorld of Fla., LLC v. Perez, 748 F.3d 1202, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
`(denying petition for review of OSHA’s finding that SeaWorld violated Clause by allowing
`trainers to work in close contact with whales); Secretary v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 09-1013,
`2011 WL 12678760, at *30 (O.S.H.R.C. Apr. 5, 2011) (Wal-Mart’s “Black Friday” practices
`violated Clause).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 14 of 35 PageID #: 1451
`
`
`
`suit that “OSHA has expressly stated its authority under the ‘general duty’ clause allows it to
`
`protect workers from workplace conditions that may contribute to the spread of COVID-19.”
`
`Compl. ¶ 65, Does v. Scalia, No. 3:20-cv-01260, ECF No. 1 (M.D. Pa. July 22, 2020).
`
`Contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestions, OSHA has actively responded to the COVID-19 crisis,
`
`conducting thousands of investigations into COVID-19-related complaints and initiating hundreds
`
`of workplace inspections. See DOL Br. 17. And “OSHA has developed a broad collection of
`
`guidance materials” involving COVID-19. Id. at 5; see also OSHA, COVID-19 Publications,
`
`https://tinyurl.com/wxa7z2p. OSHA’s enforcement actions are subject to review by the
`
`Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“OSHRC”)—a specialized body composed
`
`of administrative law judges and appellate commissioners with workplace-safety expertise.
`
`OSHRC’s decisions are reviewable by federal courts of appeals. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 660–661.
`
`Second, given OSHA’s special expertise over workplace safety, questions regarding the
`
`adequacy of COVID-19-related workplace practices are committed to OSHA’s discretion rather
`
`than the judgment of courts. Ellis, 443 F.3d at 83. The D.C. Circuit’s recent order denying a labor
`
`union’s petition to force OSHA to issue an emergency COVID-19 standard confirms OSHA’s
`
`broad discretion. The court made clear that OSHA is entitled to “considerable deference” because
`
`it has “regulatory tools . . . at its disposal to ensure that employers are maintaining hazard-free
`
`work environments.” In re AFL-CIO, No. 20-1158, 2020 WL 3125324, at *1 (D.C. Cir. June 11,
`
`2020) (per curiam). OSHA has determined that COVID-19-related “questions should be resolved
`
`by scientific discovery and political consensus, not by litigation,” and has concluded that “tailored
`
`guidance and enforcement of the general duty clause and existing standards, plus robust legal
`
`protections for complaints, is the best approach for protecting workers at this time.” DOL Br. 3,
`
`34. These considerations are only amplified where court intervention would usurp the elected
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 66 Filed 08/11/20 Page 15 of 35 PageID #: 1452
`
`
`
`branches’ authority. See South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 1614
`
`(2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (officials making pandemic-related decisions “should not be
`
`subject to second-guessing by an unelected federal judiciary, which lacks the background,
`
`competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people”).
`
`Third, “deference to OSHA” here would “ensure uniform[ity],” which is particularly
`
`crucial in the context of an unprecedented pandemic. Smithfield, 2020 WL 2145350, at *8. If
`
`individual courts were to invade the province of OSHA by imposing their own workplace-safety
`
`standards, the nation’s employers would quickly become subject to an inconsistent patchwork of
`
`court-mandated rules—rather than a uniform, standardized approach to combat the