`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`----------------------------------------------------------- X
`DERRICK PALMER, KENDIA MESIDOR,
`:
`BENITA ROUSE, ALEXANDER ROUSE,
`:
`BARBARA CHANDLER, LUIS PELLOT-
`:
`CHANDLER, and DEASAHNI BERNARD,
`:
`:
`
`:
` Plaintiffs,
`:
`- against -
`:
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM
`:
`SERVICES LLC,
`:
`
`:
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`:
`----------------------------------------------------------- X
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM DECISION
`AND ORDER
`
`20-cv-2468 (BMC)
`
`
`
`
`COGAN, District Judge.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs challenge defendants’ compliance with state and federal public health guidance
`
`and law during the COVID-19 pandemic. The amended complaint asserts claims for (i) public
`
`nuisance, (ii) breach of the duty to provide a safe workplace, (iii) failure to timely pay COVID-
`
`19 leave, and (iv) an injunction against future failure to timely pay COVID-19 leave.
`
`Before me is defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It is granted without
`
`prejudice as to plaintiffs’ claims for public nuisance and breach of the duty to provide a safe
`
`workplace, pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and with prejudice as to plaintiffs’
`
`claims for failure to timely pay COVID-19 leave.
`
`BACKGROUND1
`
`A.
`
`The Parties
`
`Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC (together, “Amazon”)
`
`operate a facility, the JFK8 fulfillment center, located on Staten Island. JFK8 runs twenty-four
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, the below facts are taken from plaintiffs’ complaint and assumed to be true for purposes of
`this motion. See Kolbasyuk v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., LP, 918 F.3d 236, 239 (2d Cir. 2019).
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 1885
`
`hours a day, seven days a week, and is larger than fourteen football fields. The facility employs
`
`thousands of workers.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs are employees working at JFK8 and people who live with those employees.
`
`Derrick Palmer works as a Warehouse Associate, Process Guide and Picking Master at JFK8.
`
`As a Picking Master, he picks customer orders, repeatedly touching items that have been touched
`
`by other workers. His role as a Process Guide requires close interaction with other associates.
`
`Kendia Mesidor lives with Mr. Palmer and faces a heightened risk of infection or complications
`
`from COVID-19.
`
`
`
`Benita Rouse works as a Problem Solver at JFK8. In this role, she assesses whether
`
`damaged items can be re-sold, requiring her to touch items that have been handled by other
`
`workers, and requiring close interaction with other workers and the use of the same equipment.
`
`Alexander Rouse is Ms. Rouse’s child and lives with her.
`
`
`
`Barbara Chandler works as a Process Assistant at JFK8. In this role, she helps manage,
`
`supervise, and coach a team of about fifty people and has to interact closely with other workers.
`
`Ms. Chandler tested positive for COVID-19 in March 2020 and several members of her
`
`household also experienced symptoms, including her cousin, who died in April 2020. Luis
`
`Pellot-Chandler is Ms. Chandler’s child and lives with her. He also experienced symptoms of
`
`COVID-19. Ms. Chandler claims that she was not timely or fully compensated for her COVID-
`
`19 sick leave.
`
`
`
`Deasahni Bernard is a member of the robotics team at JFK8. Ms. Bernard claims that she
`
`was not timely and fully paid for her COVID-19 sick leave.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 1886
`
`B.
`
`COVID-19 and Workplace Guidance
`
`The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, and its associated disease, COVID-19, is
`
`potentially lethal, has no known cure, no particularly effective treatment, and no vaccine. So far
`
`this year, it has infected over 512,000 people and killed over 33,000 people in New York State
`
`alone.2
`
`COVID-19 can spread through contact, respiratory droplets, and aerosols.3 To slow the
`
`spread of COVID-19, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) recommends
`
`frequent hand washing and disinfection of surfaces, mask wearing, and social distancing by
`
`keeping six feet away from other people and limiting contact with others outside one’s
`
`household, whether indoors or outdoors.4
`
`
`
`The State of New York has issued industry-specific guidance for businesses operating
`
`during the COVID-19 pandemic known as the “New York Forward” plan. The guidance for the
`
`Wholesale Trade Sector directs businesses to: operate at reduced capacity unless more workers
`
`are needed to continue safe operations; implement policies to minimize touching of shared
`
`surfaces; increase sanitization of workstations and shared surfaces and equipment; provide hand
`
`washing stations and supplies; stagger shifts and tasks to minimize congestion; conduct regular
`
`cleaning; allocate time during shifts for cleaning if workers are to clean their own stations;
`
`conduct health screenings of all people entering the facility and keep a log of responses; provide
`
`
`2 New York Covid Map and Case Count, N.Y. TIMES (updated Oct. 31, 2020),
`https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronavirus-cases.html.
`
`3 Scientific Brief: SARS-CoV-2 and Potential Airborne Transmission, CTRS. DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION
`(updated Oct. 5, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/scientific-brief-sars-cov-2.html.
`
`4 How to Protect Yourself & Others, CTRS. DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION (updated Sept. 11, 2020),
`https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 1887
`
`information to local authorities to assist in contact tracing; and develop a communications plan to
`
`provide employees, visitors, and customers with information.5
`
`
`
`New York further instituted a new law requiring large employers like Amazon to provide,
`
`with certain limitations, at least fourteen days of paid sick leave to employees subject to a
`
`mandatory or precautionary order of quarantine or isolation due to COVID-19.
`
`
`
`The CDC also published guidance for employers and employees operating during the
`
`pandemic. Those guidelines recommend, among other things, that employers develop flexible
`
`leave policies, approve sick leave without requiring a positive test or doctor’s note, reduce face-
`
`to-face contact between employees, take steps to reduce transmission at the workplace, establish
`
`policies to identify workers who may have been exposed to COVID-19 and aid in contact
`
`tracing, encourage hand washing and social distancing, and increase ventilation and sanitization.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`The Amended Complaint
`
`Plaintiffs filed this action and a motion for a preliminary injunction. They subsequently
`
`withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction and filed an amended complaint. This case is
`
`before me on Amazon’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
`
`The amended complaint asserts claims for (i) public nuisance and (ii) breach of the duty
`
`to protect the health and safety of employees under New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) § 200,
`
`seeking a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 for both of these causes of action, as
`
`well as claims for (iii) failure to timely pay earned wages under NYLL § 191, and (iv) an
`
`injunction against future NYLL § 191 violations. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief for their first,
`
`second, and fourth causes of action, and damages for their third cause of action.
`
`
`5 I assume for purposes of this motion that the Wholesale Trade Sector guidance as described by plaintiffs applies to
`Amazon’s JFK8 facility.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 1888
`
`Plaintiffs claim that Amazon’s operations at JFK8 fail to comply with applicable
`
`workplace guidance. They first argue that Amazon’s productivity requirements prevent
`
`employees from engaging in basic hygiene, sanitization, and social distancing. Amazon tracks
`
`employees in real time to determine whether they perform a task in each minute and aggregates a
`
`total time off task (“TOT”) every day. Employees are warned and penalized, including
`
`potentially with termination, if their TOT exceeds certain amounts. TOT is automatically
`
`counted even during paid rest breaks, including bathroom breaks, and requires supervisors to re-
`
`code certain TOT activities to prevent them from being counted against the employee. Plaintiffs
`
`claim that employees’ fear of accumulating TOT causes them to skip hand washing and
`
`sanitizing their workstations, and rush through the facility in a way that prevents social
`
`distancing. Amazon officially suspended rate requirements in March 2020, but plaintiffs claim
`
`that the change was not effectively communicated to employees until July, there is still confusion
`
`over the policy, and the productivity requirements could be reinstated at any time.6
`
`Plaintiffs also claim that only two of the breakrooms at JFK8 are air conditioned, causing
`
`workers to cluster in those areas on hot days, further impeding social distancing.
`
`Amazon conducts contact tracing for COVID-19 infections among its employees, but
`
`plaintiffs claim that it fails to do so adequately. They allege that Amazon uses surveillance to
`
`track potentially infected employees’ movements but does not interview infected workers to
`
`discuss their contacts and discourages those workers from informing others that they may be at
`
`risk. In addition, workers who have had contact with infected workers were not asked whether
`
`they have any symptoms before Amazon authorized them to return to work.
`
`
`6 In a filing dated October 16, 2020, Amazon admitted that it has resumed productivity feedback for some
`employees.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 1889
`
`Plaintiffs also take issue with Amazon’s application of New York’s COVID-19 leave
`
`law, claiming that Amazon has failed to clearly communicate to its employees the availability of
`
`leave related to COVID-19 and failed to promptly pay workers the required leave. They argue
`
`that Amazon’s existing leave policies are inadequate to encourage workers to take time away
`
`from work if they are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 or have been exposed to it.
`
`Amazon’s unpaid leave accrues slowly, is deducted when employees are late to work, and the
`
`loss of adequate leave to cover such lateness can lead to termination. Because Amazon’s Paid
`
`Time Off (“PTO”) leave accrues slowly, it is functionally unavailable to new workers. Plaintiffs
`
`further claim that Amazon fails to adequately communicate information about the availability of
`
`leave and fails to promptly approve leave.
`
`Plaintiffs argue that Amazon fails to pay employees for the full amount of the leave to
`
`which they are entitled under New York’s leave law in a timely fashion. Ms. Chandler and Ms.
`
`Bernard had to navigate a complex Human Resources system to obtain their COVID-19 leave
`
`and pay and did not receive the pay promptly in the next pay period. Ms. Chandler and Ms.
`
`Bernard ultimately received pay for fewer hours than they would have worked in the pay period
`
`and did not receive the extra $2 per hour hazard pay for those hours. Further, Ms. Chandler was
`
`paid at a short-term disability rate of her hourly wage, rather than the full wage, for the days she
`
`was on COVID-19-related leave in excess of fourteen days.
`
`Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief regarding Amazon’s operation of JFK8, communication
`
`to its employees, and sick leave payments. Their proposed injunction would require Amazon to:
`
`• Communicate clearly with workers that if they are experiencing symptoms of
`COVID-19 or otherwise may be subject to a quarantine, they should consult a
`physician or public health professional and not attend work, that they will not face
`any adverse employment consequences for taking quarantine leave, and that they
`will be paid on their next paycheck for taking quarantine leave;
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 1890
`
`• Continue suspending rate requirements and refrain from counting hand washing
`and bathroom breaks against TOT requirements, and communicate these policies
`to workers;
`
`• Provide workers with adequate time and tools to clean and disinfect their
`workstations;
`
`• Provide access to air-conditioned break rooms where workers can maintain social
`distancing;
`
`• Comply with New York’s COVID-19 paid leave law;
`
`• Either a) delegate all contact tracing responsibilities to the local health department
`or another independent, trained professional without relying on its own
`surveillance footage to determine which workers have been in contact with one
`another or, if Amazon continues to perform contact tracing itself, then b) conform
`those efforts to New York and CDC guidance for contact tracing, such as
`interviewing the infected individual about others with whom they have been in
`touch, accounting for their activities in the 48 hours before diagnosis or onset of
`symptoms, and following up with all identified contacts of the infected individual
`to inform them of their exposure and inquire if they are experiencing symptoms;
`
`• Allow workers immediate access to forty-eight hours of paid time off even if they
`have not yet accrued it for the remainder of 2020.
`
`Plaintiffs Bernard and Chandler also seek damages for Amazon’s failure to timely pay
`
`their COVID-19 sick leave pay.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`In deciding a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 12(b)(6), the
`
`Court must “constru[e] the complaint liberally, accept[] all factual allegations in the complaint as
`
`true, and draw[] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Elias v. Rolling Stone LLC,
`
`872 F.3d 97, 104 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Chase Grp. All. LLC v. City of New York Dep’t of
`
`Fin., 620 F.3d 146, 150 (2d Cir. 2010)). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must plead
`
`“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`
`550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and to “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
`
`defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 1891
`
`A.
`
`The primary-jurisdiction doctrine applies to plaintiffs’ public nuisance and NYLL §
`200 claims
`
`The doctrine of primary jurisdiction seeks to maintain a proper balance between the roles
`
`of courts and administrative agencies. See Tassy v. Brunswick Hosp. Ctr., Inc., 296 F.3d 65, 68
`
`(2d Cir. 2002). “The doctrine allows a district court to refer a matter to the appropriate
`
`administrative agency for ruling in the first instance, even when the matter is initially cognizable
`
`by the district court.” Rural Cmty. Workers All. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 459 F. Supp. 3d 1228,
`
`1240 (W.D. Mo. 2020) (quoting Access Telecomms. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 137 F.3d 605, 608 (8th
`
`Cir. 1998)). “[T]he reasons for its existence and the purposes it serves are twofold: the desire for
`
`uniformity and the reliance on administrative expertise.” Tassy, 296 F.3d at 68. “Thus, in
`
`determining whether to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine, [courts] must examine whether
`
`doing so would serve either of these purposes.” Id.
`
`
`
`There is no fixed formula for applying the doctrine. See United States v. W. Pac. R. Co.,
`
`352 U.S. 59, 64 (1956). Courts in this Circuit generally 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.
`
`
`
`Ellis v. Tribune Television Co., 443 F.3d 71, 82-83 (2d Cir. 2006). Courts “must also balance
`
`the advantages of applying the doctrine against the potential costs resulting from complications
`
`and delay in the administrative proceedings.” Id. (quoting Nat’l Commc’ns Ass’n, Inc. v. AT&T
`
`Co., 46 F.3d 220, 223 (2d Cir. 1995)).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 1892
`
`
`
`The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) is the federal agency
`
`within the Department of Labor specifically charged with regulating health and safety in the
`
`workplace. It has the primary responsibility for setting and enforcing standards and providing
`
`research, information, education, and training to assure safe and healthful working conditions.
`
`OSHA has broad prosecutorial discretion to carry out its enforcement responsibilities under the
`
`Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. See Nat’l Roofing
`
`Contractors Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 639 F.3d 339, 343 (7th Cir. 2011). The OSH Act
`
`permits employees who believe that a violation of a safety or health standard – or an imminent
`
`danger – exists at their workplace to request an inspection by filing a complaint with the
`
`Secretary of Labor. See 29 U.S.C. § 657(f)(1). If the Secretary determines that there are
`
`reasonable grounds to believe that such a violation or danger exists, the Secretary must initiate an
`
`inspection “as soon as practicable, to determine if such violation or danger exists.” Id. If the
`
`Secretary believes, as a result of an investigation, that the employer has violated the OSHA
`
`requirements, he will issue a citation to the employer. See 29 U.S.C. § 658(a).
`
`OSHA’s enforcement actions are subject to review by the Occupational Safety and
`
`Health Review Commission (“OSHRC”), a specialized body, and OSHRC’s decisions are
`
`reviewable by federal courts of appeals. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 660-661. In addition, the OSH Act
`
`provides a narrow vehicle to seek mandamus in federal district court “to restrain any conditions
`
`or practices . . . [where] a danger exists which could reasonably be expected to cause death or
`
`serious physical harm immediately” pending the outcome of a potential enforcement proceeding
`
`or where a recommendation by an OSHA inspector is arbitrarily rejected by the Secretary. 29
`
`U.S.C. § 662.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 1893
`
`OSHA has not issued a standard specific to COVID-19, relying instead on optional
`
`guidance7 and existing standards for, inter alia, personal protective equipment, general
`
`environmental controls, and toxic and hazardous substances, as well as employers’ obligations
`
`under the OSH Act’s general duty clause.8 This does not mean, however, that OSHA has
`
`abdicated its responsibilities during the pandemic. Rather, the agency has exercised its
`
`discretion in determining how to proceed in the face of an evolving pandemic fraught with
`
`uncertainty. The agency has “reasonably determined” that a standard “is not necessary at this
`
`time” to combat this unprecedented pandemic because it has existing regulatory tools at its
`
`disposal “to ensure that employers are maintaining hazard-free work environments.” In re Am.
`
`Fed’n of Labor & Cong. of Indus. Orgs., No. 20-1158, 2020 WL 3125324, at *1 (D.C. Cir. June
`
`11, 2020).
`
`
`
`OSHA continues to use its enforcement mechanisms during the pandemic. According to
`
`its website, OSHA has received nearly 10,000 COVID-19-related complaints at the federal level,
`
`including almost 200 from the general warehousing and storage industry, opened over 1,000
`
`federal inspections, and issued around 150 citations.9
`
`Plaintiffs argue that their workplace safety claims simply “require the application of law
`
`to disputed facts” and do not implicate OSHA’s expertise and discretion. I disagree. The central
`
`issue in this case is whether Amazon’s workplace policies at JFK8 adequately protect the safety
`
`of its workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. No doubt, shutting down JFK8 completely
`
`
`7 See Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19, OSHA (2020),
`https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3990.pdf.
`
`8 See COVID-19 Standards, OSHA (last visited Oct. 30, 2020), https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-
`19/standards.html.
`
`9 See COVID-19 Response Summary, OSHA (last visited Oct. 30, 2020), https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/covid-
`19-data#fed_inspections_open; Inspections with COVID-related Citations, OSHA (last updated Oct. 22, 2020),
`https://www.osha.gov/enforcement/covid-19-data/inspections-covid-related-citations.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 1894
`
`during the pandemic while continuing to provide employees with pay and benefits would be the
`
`best protection against contagion at the workplace. But someone has to strike a balance between
`
`maintaining some level of operations in conjunction with some level of protective measures.
`
`The question is whether it should be OSHA or the courts.
`
`Plaintiffs seek relief that involves detailed aspects of how Amazon regulates its
`
`workplace, from how Amazon manages employee productivity, to the time and tools provided to
`
`sanitize workstations, to the availability of air-conditioned break rooms, among other injunctive
`
`mandates. Plaintiffs’ claims thus turn on factual issues requiring both technical and policy
`
`expertise. They would have me analyze how Amazon’s employment practices and policies
`
`impact transmission of a poorly understood disease in JFK8, determine whether those policies
`
`create an unsafe workplace or otherwise violate state and federal guidance and standards, and
`
`implement and oversee new workplace policies. But courts are not expert in public health or
`
`workplace safety matters, and lack the training, expertise, and resources to oversee compliance
`
`with evolving industry guidance. Plaintiffs’ claims and proposed injunctive relief go to the heart
`
`of OSHA’s expertise and discretion.
`
`The risk of inconsistent rulings further weighs in favor of applying the doctrine of
`
`primary jurisdiction. This case concerns state and federal guidance addressing workplace safety
`
`during a pandemic for which there is no immediate end in sight. Regulating in the age of
`
`COVID-19 is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter fraught with medical and scientific
`
`uncertainty. There is room for significant disagreement as to the necessity or wisdom of any
`
`particular workplace policy or practice. Courts are particularly ill-suited to address this evolving
`
`situation and the risk of inconsistent rulings is high. Court-imposed workplace policies could
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 1895
`
`subject the industry to vastly different, costly regulatory schemes in a time of economic crisis. A
`
`determination by OSHA, on the other hand, would be more flexible and could ensure uniformity.
`
`It bears noting that plaintiffs have not made an application to OSHA. “If prior
`
`application to the agency is present, this factor provides support for the conclusion that the
`
`doctrine of primary jurisdiction is appropriate.” Ellis, 443 F.3d at 89. A failure to apply to the
`
`agency “may weigh against referral,” id., but does not in this case. Plaintiffs chose to pursue
`
`their claims in federal court rather than apply for relief from OSHA, and the other factors
`
`overwhelmingly support applying primary jurisdiction.
`
`Finally, the advantages of applying the doctrine outweigh the potential costs of delay in
`
`the administrative proceedings. Plaintiffs’ challenges to Amazon’s workplace policies require
`
`the expertise of the agency tasked with regulating workplace health and safety. Although this
`
`decision will necessarily delay the implementation of plaintiffs’ proposed relief, at least part of
`
`the responsibility for that delay lies with plaintiffs. Plaintiffs decided not to pursue emergency
`
`relief in this case and did not pursue a parallel track by applying to OSHA.
`
`Accordingly, it is appropriate to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction to plaintiffs’
`
`public nuisance and NYLL § 200 claims. When a district court refers an issue or claim to an
`
`administrative agency under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, it may either dismiss or stay the
`
`action. Dismissal without prejudice is preferable to a stay here so that plaintiffs may determine
`
`whether to seek relief through the appropriate administrative and regulatory framework.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ public nuisance and § 200 claims would otherwise be dismissed
`
`Even if I did not defer to OSHA’s primary jurisdiction, plaintiffs’ public nuisance and
`
`NYLL § 200 claims would not survive Amazon’s motion to dismiss.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 1896
`
`1. Public Nuisance
`
`A cause of action for public nuisance addresses conduct that “amounts to a substantial
`
`interference with the exercise of a common right,” such as endangering the health or safety of a
`
`considerable number of individuals of the public. Benoit v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics
`
`Corp., 959 F.3d 491, 504 (2d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Conduct that causes the spread of
`
`contagious disease can constitute such an interference if it violates the public’s right to health
`
`and safety. Cf. Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 421 n.5 (1987) (public nuisances include
`
`“the keeping of diseased animals, or a malarial pond”).
`
`“A public nuisance is a violation against the State and is subject to abatement or
`
`prosecution by the proper governmental authority.” 532 Madison Ave. Gourmet Foods, Inc. v.
`
`Finlandia Ctr., Inc., 96 N.Y.2d 280, 292, 727 N.Y.S.2d 49, 56 (2001). The exception is that a
`
`“public nuisance is actionable by a private person only if it is shown that the person suffered
`
`special injury beyond that suffered by the community at large.” Benoit, 959 F.3d at 505 (quoting
`
`532 Madison, 96 N.Y.2d at 292, 727 N.Y.S.2d at 56). The injury at issue to support a private
`
`action must be different in “kind,” not simply “degree,” from that suffered by the public. See id.
`
`A private action for public nuisance cannot be maintained where the injury is “so general and
`
`widespread as to affect a whole community.” Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v.
`
`Lindner, 59 N.Y.2d 314, 334, 464 N.Y.S.2d 712, 721 (1983).
`
`Here, plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are that they have an increased risk of contracting
`
`COVID-19 and fear of the same because they work in conditions, or live with someone who
`
`does, that increase the risk of spread of COVID-19. This injury is common to the New York
`
`City community at large. Plaintiffs and the public alike face varying levels of risk of exposing
`
`themselves and the people they live with to the virus. Unlike the noxious landfill, a malarial
`
`pond, or a pigsty, JFK8 is not the source of COVID-19, emitting the virus from a single source
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 1897
`
`into an otherwise healthy world. The public at large cannot avoid COVID-19 simply by
`
`avoiding JFK8, its immediate surrounding area, and its employees. Instead, plaintiffs and the
`
`public risk exposing themselves to COVID-19 nearly anywhere in this country and the world.
`
`Both plaintiffs’ concern and their risk present a difference in degree, not kind, from the
`
`injury suffered by the public at large and thus is not actionable in a private action for public
`
`nuisance.
`
`2. NYLL § 200
`
`For their claim under NYLL § 200, plaintiffs argue that Amazon breached its duty to
`
`maintain a safe workplace by failing to adopt and adhere to New York’s workplace guidance and
`
`COVID-19 leave law, causing plaintiffs “emotional harm and in some cases pecuniary harm and
`
`physical harm associated with the COVID-19 infection,” as well as “likely . . . future harm.”
`
`i. Plaintiffs’ § 200 claim is not preempted by the OSH Act
`
`Amazon argues that plaintiffs’ § 200 claim is preempted by the OSH Act. Congress can
`
`preempt state law expressly or implicitly. See Marentette v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 886 F.3d 112,
`
`117 (2d Cir. 2018). Courts “start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the
`
`States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest
`
`purpose of Congress.” Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009). The party asserting that
`
`federal law preempts a state law claim bears the burden of establishing preemption. See
`
`Marentette, 886 F.3d at 117.
`
`“The doctrine of implied preemption will bar a state law claim where, ‘under the
`
`circumstances of a particular case, the challenged state law stands as an obstacle to the
`
`accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’” In re Jackson,
`
`972 F.3d 25, 34 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363,
`
`373 (2000)). “What constitutes a ‘sufficient obstacle’ is a ‘matter of judgment, to be informed
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 1898
`
`by examining the federal statute as a whole and identifying its purpose and intended effects.’”
`
`Id. (quoting Crosby, 530 U.S. at 373).
`
`The OSH Act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to promulgate federal occupational safety
`
`and health standards. Section 18(a) of the OSH Act provides that “[n]othing in this chapter shall
`
`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.” 29 U.S.C. §
`
`667(a). An “occupational safety and health standard” under the Act is “a standard which
`
`requires conditions, or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, operations,
`
`or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment and
`
`places of employment.” 29 U.S.C. § 652(8). “[A] state law requirement that directly,
`
`substantially, and specifically regulates occupational safety and health is an occupational safety
`
`and health standard within the meaning of the Act.” Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n,
`
`505 U.S. 88, 107 (1992). “[N]onapproved state regulation of occupational safety and health
`
`issues for which a federal standard is in effect is impliedly pre-empted as in conflict with the full
`
`purposes and objectives of the OSH Act.” Id. at 98-99.
`
`In addition to reserving for state regulation those issues not governed by a federal
`
`standard, Congress also provided states the option of completely replacing federal standards with
`
`their own. A state may “assume responsibility for development and enforcement therein of
`
`occupational safety and health standards relating to any occupational safety or health issue with
`
`respect to which a Federal standard has been promulgated” by submitting a state “plan for the
`
`development of such standards and their enforcement.” 29 U.S.C. § 667(b).
`
`In 1973, New York submitted a plan that received the Secretary’s approval, but withdrew
`
`the plan two years later. See Irwin v. St. Joseph’s Intercommunity Hosp., 236 A.D.2d 123, 127,
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-02468-BMC Document 73 Filed 11/02/20 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 1899
`
`665 N.Y.S.2d 773, 777 (4th Dep’t 1997). New York thus cannot enforce state occupational
`
`safety and health standards for issues covered by a federal standard. See Gade, 505 U.S. at 98-
`
`99.
`
`Finally, “[f]ederal regulation of the workplace was not intended to be all encompassing,”
`
`Gade, 505 U.S. at 96, and Congress further saved certain areas from federal preemption. The
`
`OSH Act does not “supersede or in any manner affect any workmen’s compensation law” or
`
`“enlarge or diminish or affect in any other manner the common law or statutory rights, duties, or
`
`liabilities of employers and employees under 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). By
`
`including this savings clause, “Congress expressly carved out of its preemption rules state
`
`common law and statutory tort remedie