Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 1539
`
`
`DERRICK PALMER, KENDIA MESIDOR,
`BENITA ROUSE, ALEXANDER ROUSE,
`BARBARA CHANDLER, LUIS PELLOT-
`CHANDLER, and DEASAHNI BERNARD,
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`No. 1:20-cv-02468-BMC
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES, LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 1540
`
`The Court should not defer to OSHA under the primary
`jurisdiction doctrine ............................................................................................ 1
`
`1.
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are not within the special
`competence of OSHA ............................................................................. 1
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`OSHA has no jurisdiction over public health and
`safety issues governed by state law ........................................................ 3
`
`Amazon’s arguments as to the Court’s competence to
`decide this matter would apply to a wide swath of
`common law claims ................................................................................ 4
`
`Plaintiffs state a NYLL § 200 claim ................................................................... 6
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs challenge Amazon’s post-July 13 practices
`because workers continue to be unaware of the modified
`productivity requirements ..................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ § 200 claim is not preempted by the OSH Act ...................... 6
`
`Plaintiffs need not establish causation of an existing
`injury in order to seek injunctive relief under § 200 ............................... 9
`
`Plaintiffs state a claim for public nuisance ....................................................... 11
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged interference with a
` public right ........................................................................................... 11
`
`Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged special injury ................................. 12
`
`Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged actual and
`proximate causation of the increased risk of exposure ......................... 14
`
`Plaintiffs have standing to seek injunctive relief .............................................. 15
`
`1.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 1541
`
`2.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs have standing to ensure that newly hired
`workers are notified about the modified productivity
`requirements .......................................................................................... 17
`
`Workers’ compensation exclusivity does not bar employee-plaintiffs’
`claims ................................................................................................................ 18
`
`Plaintiffs state a claim for failure to pay wages under NYLL § 191 ................ 19
`
`Plaintiffs retain standing to challenge Amazon’s pre-July
`13 practices because it is not “absolutely clear” that they
`will not recur ......................................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`
`F.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`4.
`
`
`Leave Law payments are wages subject to the provisions
`of New York Labor Law § 191 ............................................................. 19
`
`Amazon’s $2 hazard pay was a raise and workers were
`entitled to receive that raise in their Leave Law payments ................... 21
`
`Plaintiffs have standing to seek injunctive relief on
`behalf of a class ..................................................................................... 22
`
`Section 191 of the New York Labor Law provides a
`cause of action for breach of statutory rights ........................................ 23
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 1542
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`
`Page
`
`Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`
`No. 09 Civ. 0395, 2010 WL 2925955 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2010) ................................... 5
`
`Businesses for a Better New York v. Angello,
`
`341 F. App’x 701 (2d Cir. 2009) .................................................................................... 7
`
`Cavalotti v. Daddyo’s BBQ, Inc.,
`
`No. 15 Civ. 6469, 2018 WL 5456654 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2018) .................................. 24
`
`City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
`
`461 U.S. 95 (1983) .................................................................................................. 16, 17
`
`City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
`
`315 F. Supp. 2d 256 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) .......................................................................... 14
`
`City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,
`
`524 F.3d 384 (2d Cir. 2008).......................................................................................... 18
`
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,
`
`568 U.S. 398 (2013) ...................................................................................................... 23
`
`Crawford v. Coram Fire Dist,
`
`No. CV 12-3850, 2015 WL 10044273 (E.D.N.Y. May 4, 2015) ................................. 20
`
`Desiano v. Warner-Lambert & Co.,
`
`467 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2006).............................................................................................. 4
`
`Does v. Scalia,
`
`No. 3:20-cv-01260, ECF No. 1 (M.D. Pa. July 22, 2020) .......................................... 2, 5
`
`DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Fin., Ltd.,
`
`323 F. Supp. 3d 393 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ........................................................................... 15
`
`Eastside, Inc. v. Waste Mgmt. of New York, L.L.C.,
`
`405 F. Supp. 3d 408 (W.D.N.Y. 2019) ......................................................................... 13
`
`Ellis v. Tribune Television Co.,
`
`443 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006).......................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`Floyd v. City of New York,
`
`283 F.R.D. 153 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) .................................................................................. 23
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 1543
`
`Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.,
`
`528 U.S. 167 (2000) ...................................................................................................... 16
`
`Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n,
`
`505 U.S. 88 (1992) .................................................................................................. 6, 7, 8
`
`Goya Foods, Inc. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc.,
`
`846 F.2d 848 (2d Cir. 1988)............................................................................................ 2
`
`Hill v. City of New York,
`136 F Supp 3d 304 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) ............................................................................ 22
`
`
`In re Am. Fed’n of Labor,
`
`No. 20-1158, 2020 WL 3125324 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 2020) .......................................... 9
`
`Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp,
`
`No. 12 Civ. 7460, 2013 WL 4565037 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2013) .................................. 9
`
`Lindsey v. Caterpillar, Inc.,
`
`480 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2007)............................................................................................ 5
`
`Myers v. Hertz Corp.,
`
`624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir 2010)........................................................................................... 24
`
`Montauk Oil Transp. Corp. v. Tug El Zorro Grande,
`
`54 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 1995)............................................................................................ 18
`
`NAACP v. AcuSport, Inc.,
`
`271 F.Supp.2d 435 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) ...................................................................... 12, 14
`
`Nat’l Commc’ns Ass’n v. Am. Tel. and Tel. Co.,
`
`46 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 1995).......................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`Pedraza v. Shell Oil Co.,
`
`942 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1991) ............................................................................................. 5
`
`Sakellaridis v. Polar Air Cargo, Inc.,
`
`104 F. Supp. 2d 160 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) ........................................................................ 4, 7
`
`Segedie v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`
`No. 14 Civ. 5029, 2015 WL 2168374 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) ..................................... 5
`
`Sosnowy v. A. Perri Farms, Inc.,
`
`764 F. Supp. 2d 457 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) .......................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 1544
`
`Steel Inst. of New York v. City of New York,
`
`832 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ......................................................................... 7, 8
`
`Steel Inst. of N.Y. v. City of New York,
`
`716 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2013).............................................................................................. 5
`
`Summers v. Earth Is. Inst.,
`
`555 U.S. 488 (2009) ...................................................................................................... 22
`
`United States v. Herrera,
`
`584 F.2d 1137, 1149 (2d Cir. 1978)................................................................................ 6
`
`Wing Kwong Ho v. Target Const. of NY, Corp.,
`
`No. 08 Civ. 4750, 2011 WL 1131510 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2011) ................................ 24
`
`Wyeth v. Levine,
`
`555 U.S. 555 (2009) ........................................................................................................ 6
`
`STATE CASES
`
`532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Ctr., Inc.,
`
`750 N.E.2d 1097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001) .................................................................. 12, 13
`
`Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1277 v. Los Angeles Cty. Metro. Transp. Auth.,
`
`107 Cal. App. 4th 673, 32 Cal. Rtr. 2d 207 (2003) ....................................................... 19
`
`Binenfeld v. New York State Dep’t of Health,
`
`226 A.D.2d 935, 640 N.Y.S.2d 924 (1996) .................................................................... 6
`
`Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide,
`
`169 Cal. App. 4th 1540 (2009) ..................................................................................... 11
`
`Burns, Jackson, Miller, Summit & Spitzer v. Linder,
`
`451 N.E.2d 459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983) .......................................................................... 13
`
`Conway v. Circus Circus Casinos, Inc.,
`
`8 P.3d 837 (Nev. 2000) ................................................................................................. 19
`
`Copart Indus., Inc. v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York,
`
`41 N.Y.2d 564, 362 N.E.2d 968 (1977) ........................................................................ 11
`
`Daniels v. New York City Transit Auth.,
`
`35 N.Y.3d 938, 146 N.E.3d 1160 (2020) ........................................................................ 6
`
`Haire v. Bonelli,
`
`870 N.Y.S.2d 591, 595 (2008) ...................................................................................... 12
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 1545
`
`Hicks v. Allegheny E. Conf. Ass’n of Seventh-Day Adventists,
`
`712 A.2d 1021, 1021-22 (D.C. Ct. App. 1998) ...................................................... 18, 19
`
`Massey v. McDonalds,
`
`20 CH 4247 (Circuit Ct. of Cook County June 24, 2020) ............................................ 11
`
`Meeker v. Van Rensselaer,
`
`15 Wend. 387 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1836) ............................................................................. 11
`
`Monaghan v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr,
`
`85 N.Y.S.3d 475 (2018) .......................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`New York v. Schenectady Chems.,
`
`479 N.Y.2d 1010 (1984) ............................................................................................... 14
`
`People v. Pymm,
`
`76 N.Y.2d 511, 561 N.Y.S.2d 687, 563 N.E.2d 1 (1990) ............................................... 5
`
`Pironti v. Leary,
`
`42 A.D.3d 487, 840 N.Y.S.2d 98 (2d Dep’t 2007) ....................................................... 15
`
`Raritan Dev. Corp. v. Silva,
`
`91 N.Y.2d 98 (1997) ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`Rocha v. GRT Constr. of New York,
`
`145 A.D.3d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) ......................................................................... 7
`
`Roth v. City of St. Joseph,
`
` 147 S.W. 490 (Ks. Ct. App. 1912) ............................................................................... 11
`
`Saab v. Massachusetts CVS Pharmacy, LLC,
`
`452 Mass. 564, 896 N.E.2d 615 (2008) ........................................................................ 19
`
`Samiento v. World Yacht Inc.,
`
`10 N.Y.3d 70 (2008) ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`Seigle v. Bromley,
`
`124 P. 191, 195 (Colo. Ct. App. 1912) ......................................................................... 13
`
`Stock v. Ronan,
`
`313 N.Y.S. 2d 508 (1970) ............................................................................................. 11
`
`Tierney v. Capricorn Inv’rs, L.P.,
`
`189 A.D.2d 629 (App. Div. 1st Dept. 1993) ................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 1546
`
`Trimarco v. Klein,
`
`56 N.Y.2d 98, 436 N.E.2d 502 (1982) ............................................................................ 5
`
`Truelove v. Northeast Capital & Advisory, Inc.,
`
`95 N.Y.2d 220 (2000) 21
`
`Vega v. CM and Assoc. Constr. Mgt., LLC,
`
`175 A.D.3d 1144 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept 2019) ....................................................... 24
`
`Woodyear v. Schaefer,
`
`57 Md. 1 (1881) ............................................................................................................ 14
`
`
`
`FEDERAL RULES AND STATUTES
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.132 .................................................................................................................. 2
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.134 .............................................................................................................. 2, 9
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.141 .................................................................................................................. 9
`
`29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4) ............................................................................................................. 4, 7
`
`29 U.S.C. § 659(c) ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`29 U.S.C. § 667(a) .................................................................................................................. 8, 9
`
`
`STATE LAWS
`
`
`N.Y. Lab. L. §§ 191(1)(a)(i) ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`N.Y. Lab. L. §§ 191(1)(a)(i)(d)................................................................................................. 20
`
`N.Y. Lab. L. § 200 ...................................................................................................................... 6
`
`N.Y. Lab. L. §200(1) ............................................................................................................ 8, 10
`
`N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 11 ............................................................................................... 18
`
`N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 142 ............................................................................................. 18
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 821B, cmt. g (1979) ...................................................... 11, 12
`
`2020 N.Y. Senate Bill S8091 § 5 .............................................................................................. 20
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 1547
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs allege longstanding state law claims asserting that Amazon’s failure to follow
`
`New York public health and safety laws during the pandemic endangers workers and the public.
`
`The coronavirus and its crippling consequences for New York may be novel, but Plaintiffs’
`
`claims in this case are not.
`
`Amazon urges the Court to defer to OSHA, an agency that has affirmatively decided to
`
`ride out the pandemic on the sidelines and whose expertise is, in any event, not needed here.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint asserts violations of state law and guidance, bears little relation
`
`to any OSHA standard, and alleges New York statutory and common law claims expressly
`
`preserved by the OSH Act. Amazon’s challenge to Plaintiffs’ standing to seek injunctive relief
`
`likewise is of no merit, as Plaintiffs raise ample concerns about the current conditions at JFK8
`
`and the risk that COVID-19 will spread as a result. Finally, Plaintiffs’ wage claims under the
`
`Labor Law are expressly contemplated by New York’s COVID-19 paid leave law.
`
`This case may raise difficult questions, including, ultimately, whether the current severity
`
`of the pandemic and the working conditions at JFK8 justify an injunction. But there should be no
`
`question that Plaintiffs plausibly allege the elements of these causes of action, which workers
`
`and the public have traditionally used to protect themselves from violations of public health and
`
`safety laws. These questions are not appropriately resolved on a motion to dismiss. The Court
`
`should deny Amazon’s motion in its entirety.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Court should not defer to OSHA under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are not within the special competence of OSHA.
`
`Primary jurisdiction is a prudential doctrine that is “narrow” and intended to “guard
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 10 of 35 PageID #: 1548
`
`against premature judicial encroachment upon an agency’s sphere of responsibility and
`
`expertise.” Goya Foods, Inc. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 846 F.2d 848, 851 (2d Cir. 1988).
`
`Amazon points to four “factors” it says govern the doctrine, but the case it cites cautioned that
`
`there is no “rigid formula,” and that the benefits of agency expertise must be weighed against the
`
`“potential costs resulting from complication and delay in the administrative proceedings.” Ellis v.
`
`Tribune Television Co., 443 F.3d 71, 82-83 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Comparing the complaint against the Ellis factors and potential costs of delay reveals what a
`
`poor fit this case is for relinquishing this Court’s oversight role to an overburdened agency.
`
`The first two Ellis factors concern the agency’s expertise and discretion over questions
`
`posed by the litigation. Here, if Plaintiffs were asking this Court to opine on the adequacy of
`
`protective equipment provided by Amazon, or the quality of its respirators, then these factors
`
`might counsel in favor of deferring to OSHA’s primary jurisdiction. See Defs.’ Br. at 4 (citing 29
`
`C.F.R. § 1910.132 on PPE and 29 C.F.R. § 1910.134 on respirators, which are not used by
`
`workers at JFK8). But this case involves the timeliness and adequacy of leave payments and
`
`whether Amazon has sufficiently informed its JFK8 workers of policies it claims to have
`
`implemented at the corporate level. These questions require the application of law to disputed
`
`facts, matters well within the conventional expertise of judges. See Goya, 846 F.2d at 853; Nat’l
`
`Commc’ns Ass’n v. Am. Tel. and Tel. Co., 46 F.3d 220, 224 (2d Cir. 1995) (“determining
`
`whether NCA paid its bills on time . . . [does not present] technical issues”).
`
`Amazon also points to Does v. Scalia, No. 3:20-cv-01260, ECF No. 1 (M.D. Pa. July 22,
`
`2020) for the proposition that OSHA has the authority to regulate COVID-related hazards under
`
`the general duty clause. Defs.’ Br. at 5. But OSHA’s theoretical authority to cite Amazon under
`
`the general duty clause for conditions at JFK8 is a far cry from a pending administrative
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 11 of 35 PageID #: 1549
`
`proceeding that might lead to inconsistent rulings if not allowed to run its course. Concerns about
`
`parallel proceedings animate the third and fourth Ellis factors, and OSHA’s pattern of COVID-
`
`related enforcement suggests those factors are not at play here. Does v. Scalia was filed precisely
`
`because OSHA declined to exercise its authority despite several workers filing complaints with
`
`the agency against the same employer over a three-month period. In that case, OSHA revealed
`
`that it has issued only four COVID-related citations in response to 7,300 worker complaints.
`
`Does v. Scalia, No. 3:20-cv-01260, ECF No. 43-1, at 96:8-16. 1
`
`Even if a JFK8 worker did initiate an OSHA complaint and OSHA chose to respond with
`
`an inspection, the agency could take up to six months to issue a citation and proposed penalty,
`
`whose implementation would be stayed pending any appeal by Amazon. 29 U.S.C. § 659(c). In
`
`short, waiting for OSHA to act when it may never do so would “impose[] enormous costs” that
`
`the plaintiffs here should not have to endure simply because the OSHA process is an available
`
`alternative. Nat’l Commc’ns Ass’n, 46 F.3d at 225. Amazon’s effort to convert this alternative
`
`option into a jurisdictional prerequisite should be rejected. See Defs.’ Br. at 6. This Court can
`
`resolve the “relatively simple factual dispute” this case presents “far more expeditiously” than
`
`would be possible through OSHA. Nat’l Commc’ns Ass’n, 46 F.3d at 225. It should do so.
`
`2.
`
`OSHA has no jurisdiction over public health and safety issues governed by state
`law.
`
`The Court need not analyze the Ellis factors to reject Amazon’s primary jurisdiction
`
`argument. Not only does this case not call upon OSHA’s special expertise; it does not even
`
`attempt to enforce the laws that OSHA is charged with enforcing—or federal law at all.
`
`
`1 See also Exclusive: OSHA Never Visited Missouri Poultry Facility After COVID-19 Complaints, KMBC Kansas
`City, available at https://www.kmbc.com/article/exclusive-osha-never-visited-missouri-poultry-facility-after-covid-
`19-complaints/33660429 (last visited August 23, 2020) (after receiving complaint, OSHA sent employer a letter
`stating it did not intend to conduct an inspection, and closed the file less than three weeks later, for a facility where
`371 workers later tested positive).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 12 of 35 PageID #: 1550
`
`Plaintiffs’ state law claims rely principally on New York’s “minimum requirements” for
`
`businesses operating during the pandemic and New York leave law. To be sure, those mandates
`
`incorporate some guidance from federal agencies, but they are state law. It defies reason and the
`
`principles of federalism to suggest that when New York promulgated those requirements it
`
`surrendered its jurisdiction to enforce them to a federal agency (or that it surrendered its
`
`residents’ right to have those requirements enforced via private claims).
`
`3.
`
`Amazon’s arguments as to the Court’s competence to decide this matter would
`apply to a wide swath of common law claims.
`
`Amazon’s primary jurisdiction argument appears not to be driven by the primary
`
`jurisdiction doctrine itself, since it makes little sense to defer to OSHA’s enforcement in an area
`
`where OSHA is not performing enforcement and with respect to state requirements over which
`
`OSHA has no jurisdiction. Rather, the thrust of Amazon’s argument is that the Court should
`
`defer because public safety and health claims raise complex questions of the appropriate standard
`
`of care. That argument proves too much, sweeping in many of the kinds of claims traditionally
`
`litigated under state common law that are critical to protecting public health and safety. Yet
`
`common law claims, even claims raising complex questions regarding the duty of care, have
`
`historically “formed the bedrock of state regulation,” and are “a critical component of the States’
`
`traditional ability to protect the health and safety of their citizens.” Desiano v. Warner-Lambert
`
`& Co., 467 F.3d 85, 86 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
`
`OSHA’s authority to protect workers (which it has not exercised here) exists alongside
`
`this state-law framework. OSHA has never displaced these enforcement mechanisms, and the
`
`OSH Act’s savings provision expressly contemplates a role for private enforcement under state
`
`law. 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4); Sakellaridis v. Polar Air Cargo, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 160, 163
`
`(E.D.N.Y. 2000) (“There is a consensus that the savings clause operates to save state tort
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 13 of 35 PageID #: 1551
`
`rules.”); Pedraza v. Shell Oil Co., 942 F.2d 48, 53 (1st Cir. 1991) (calling consensus “solid” and
`
`collecting cases); People v. Pymm, 76 N.Y.2d 511, 523-24, 561 N.Y.S.2d 687, 563 N.E.2d 1
`
`(1990), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1085 (1991). Moreover, the rights Plaintiffs seek to vindicate here
`
`extend beyond the workplace and concern the health of the surrounding community, over which
`
`OSHA has neither expertise nor legal authority. Steel Inst. of N.Y. v. City of New York, 716 F.3d
`
`31, 33 (2d Cir. 2013). OSHA recently reiterated this limitation on its authority in the same case
`
`Amazon cites here. Does v. Scalia, No. 3:20-cv-01260, ECF No. 46 at 15 n.9 (citing Lindsey v.
`
`Caterpillar, Inc., 480 F.3d 202, 208 (3d Cir. 2007) for the proposition that “The [OSH] Act is
`
`limited in scope, . . . as jurisdiction under the Act extends only to the employee-employer
`
`relationship within the workplace.”).
`
`To be sure, state law claims raising public safety and health questions will call on areas
`
`of expertise with which courts may not have great familiarity. But that is so for many torts that
`
`implicate standards of care, including medical malpractice claims. Plaintiffs’ claims are
`
`substantially more straightforward than the typical claim raising a common law duty because
`
`these claims are based on the mandatory “minimum requirements” of New York public health
`
`law. E.g., Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 09 Civ. 0395, 2010 WL 2925955, at *14 (E.D.N.Y.
`
`July 21, 2010) (question whether corporation violated regulation “is one courts are well-
`
`equipped to handle”); Segedie v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., No. 14 Civ. 5029, 2015 WL 2168374,
`
`at *13 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2015) (similar). Those requirements provide the Court with the standard
`
`of care Amazon owes its workers (under the § 200 claim) and the public generally (under the
`
`public nuisance claim). Trimarco v. Klein, 56 N.Y.2d 98, 105, 436 N.E.2d 502, 505 (1982)
`
`(where there is a customary “way of doing things safely, this custom may be proved to show that
`
`[the one charged with the dereliction] has fallen below the required standard.”); see also N.Y.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 14 of 35 PageID #: 1552
`
`Pattern Jury Instr.--Civil 2:16.
`
`Although the NY Forward guidelines are mandatory “minimum requirements,” the same
`
`analysis would apply even if they were not binding. Non-mandatory guidelines are perfectly
`
`good evidence of the accepted method of “doing things safely.” Daniels v. New York City Transit
`
`Auth., 35 N.Y.3d 938, 939, 146 N.E.3d 1160 (2020) (finding that the “trial court properly
`
`admitted plaintiff’s expert testimony regarding non-mandatory gap standards”).
`
`And there is no due process problem with bringing common law claims to enforce public
`
`health standards, whether or not they are binding on their own. All due process requires is that
`
`“the law give sufficient warning that men may conduct themselves so as to avoid that which is
`
`forbidden.” United States v. Herrera, 584 F.2d 1137, 1149 (2d Cir. 1978). NYLL § 200 and New
`
`York’s public nuisance doctrine provide this warning. That they do not delineate exactly what
`
`acts will lead to liability is immaterial. Binenfeld v. New York State Dep’t of Health, 226 A.D.2d
`
`935, 936, 640 N.Y.S.2d 924, 926 (1996). It should come as no surprise to Amazon that it will be
`
`held to a reasonable standard of care, and—for the reasons described above—that state- and
`
`federally-promulgated guidelines will be relevant to determining where that standard lies.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs state a NYLL § 200 claim.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs’ § 200 claim is not preempted by the OSH Act.
`
`Plaintiffs’ § 200 claim is not preempted. The OSH Act “was not intended to be all
`
`encompassing[.]” Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 102 (1992) (plurality);
`
`see also Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009) (presumption against preemption). To the
`
`contrary, Congress “expressly saved two areas from federal pre-emption.” Gade, 505 U.S at 96.
`
`The OSH Act declares that nothing in the Act shall be interpreted to (1) supersede or otherwise
`
`affect “common law or statutory rights, duties, or liabilities of employers and employees under
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 15 of 35 PageID #: 1553
`
`any law with respect to injuries, diseases, or death of employees arising out of, or in the course
`
`of, employment,” 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4); or (2) “prevent any State agency or court from asserting
`
`jurisdiction under State law over any occupational safety or health issue with respect to which no
`
`standard is in effect under section 655 of this title.” Id. § 667(a). Each of these clauses provides
`
`an independent basis for rejecting Amazon’s preemption arguments in this case.
`
`As an initial matter, as discussed in § I.B., supra, the “savings clause” of § 653(b)(4)
`
`expressly preserves state tort and statutory claims like the right to a safe workplace codified at
`
`NYLL § 200, which is “a codification of the common-law duty of property owners and general
`
`contractors to provide workers with a safe place to work.” Rocha v. GRT Constr. of New York,
`
`145 A.D.3d 926, 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) (internal quotation and citation omitted). In
`
`Sakellaridis v. Polar Air Cargo, Inc., a court in this district rejected a preemption challenge to
`
`New York’s scaffold law, concluding that “[i]t is not consequential that the standard of care is
`
`prescribed by the common law, a separate statutory scheme, or an administrative scheme.
`
`Because [the scaffold law] provides a remedy for personal injuries suffered in the course of
`
`employment, it is not preempted.” 104 F. Supp. 2d at 162; see also Businesses for a Better New
`
`York v. Angello, 341 F. App’x 701, 706 (2d Cir. 2009) (rejecting preemption challenge to
`
`scaffold law, noting “OSHA is not intended to ‘diminish or affect’ the ‘statutory rights, duties, or
`
`liabilities of employers’ with respect to work-related injuries” (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 653(b)(4)).
`
`Gade v. Nat’l. Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n. does not alter this analysis. Unlike the state law
`
`at issue in Gade, § 200 does not “directly and substantially regulate worker health.” Steel Inst. of
`
`New York v. City of New York, 832 F. Supp. 2d 310, 321-22 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), aff’d, 716 F.3d 31
`
`(2d Cir. 2013) (citing Gade). Instead, § 200 codifies a common-law general duty of care to
`
`provide a safe workplace. See Rocha, 145 A.D.3d at 927. Moreover, § 200’s protections extend
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 68 Filed 08/25/20 Page 16 of 35 PageID #: 1554
`
`not just to employees, but to “all persons…lawfully freque