Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 313
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`ATTORNEY GENERAL LETITIA JAMES, in
`her official capacity as the Attorney General of
`the State of New York,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-767 (BMC)
`
`
`
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Jason C. Schwartz (pro hac vice)
`Lucas C. Townsend (pro hac vice)
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Tel.: (202) 955-8500
`jschwartz@gibsondunn.com
`ltownsend@gibsondunn.com
`
`Mylan L. Denerstein
`Zainab N. Ahmad
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Tel.: (212) 351-4000
`mdenerstein@gibsondunn.com
`zahmad@gibsondunn.com
`
`
` Attorneys for Plaintiff Amazon.com, Inc.
`
`
`June 18, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 314
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 4
`
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................... 5
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 6
`
`I.
`
`The OAG’s Attempt To Regulate Claims Of Retaliation Against
`Employees Who Protested Working Conditions Is Preempted By The
`NLRA And Falls Within The Exclusive Jurisdiction Of The NLRB. ................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The NLRA Protects And Prohibits The Activity The OAG
`Purports To Regulate. ................................................................................ 7
`
`The Controversy The OAG Seeks To Regulate Is Identical To One
`That Could Have Been Brought (And Was Brought) Before The
`NLRB. ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`The Local Interest Exception To NLRA Preemption Is
`Inapplicable. ............................................................................................. 11
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`The OSH Act Preempts The OAG From Regulating Amazon’s
`Occupational Safety Measures In Response To COVID-19. ............................... 13
`
`The OAG’s Attempt To Regulate Amazon’s Health-And-Safety
`Response To COVID-19 Impermissibly Intrudes On OSHA’s Primary
`Jurisdiction. .......................................................................................................... 18
`
`IV.
`
`The Court Should Grant A Declaratory Judgment. ............................................. 22
`
`V.
`
`Amazon Is Entitled To Injunctive Relief. ............................................................ 23
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Amazon Has Been Irreparably Harmed By The OAG’s Unlawful
`Exercise Of Regulatory Authority And Remedies At Law Are
`Inadequate. ............................................................................................... 23
`
`The Public Interest And Balance Of Hardships Favor Injunctive
`Relief. ....................................................................................................... 25
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 25
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 315
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`In re AFL-CIO,
`2020 WL 3125324 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 2020) ..........................................................................20
`
`In re AFL-CIO,
`No. 20-1158 (D.C. Cir. May 29, 2020) ....................................................................................14
`
`AFT v. OSHA,
`No. 20-73203 (9th Cir. Dec. 31, 2020) ....................................................................................20
`
`Am. Transit Ins. Co. v. Bilyk,
`2021 WL 216673 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2021) ..............................................................................5
`
`Amalgamated Ass’n of St., Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Emps. of Am. v. Lockridge,
`403 U.S. 274 (1971) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Andrewsikas v. Supreme Indus., Inc.,
`2021 WL 1090786 (D. Conn. Mar. 22, 2021) .....................................................................9, 13
`
`Arcadian Health Plan, Inc. v. Korfman,
`2010 WL 5173624 (D. Me. Dec. 14, 2010) .............................................................................23
`
`Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHRC,
`430 U.S. 442 (1977) .................................................................................................................17
`
`Batista v. Union of Needleworkers,
`2000 WL 1760923 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2000) ...........................................................................9
`
`Bergen Reg’l Med. Ctr., L.P. v. Health Prof’ls,
`2005 WL 3216549 (D.N.J. Nov. 29, 2005) .............................................................................11
`
`Bud Antle, Inc. v. Barbosa,
`45 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Carley v. Gentry,
`2021 WL 2276458 (D. Nev. June 3, 2021) ..............................................................................21
`
`Case v. Ivey,
`2021 WL 2210589 (M.D. Ala. June 1, 2021) ..........................................................................21
`
`Casumpang v. Hawaiian Com. & Sugar Co.,
`712 F. App’x 709 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................12
`
`Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Edmondson,
`594 F.3d 742 (10th Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................................23, 25
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 316
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Reich,
`74 F.3d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Chaulk Servs., Inc. v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrim.,
`70 F.3d 1361 (1st Cir. 1995) ..............................................................................................10, 11
`
`Citineighbors Coal. of Historic Carnegie Hill v. N.Y.C. Landmarks Pres.
`Comm’n,
`2 N.Y.3d 727 (2004) ................................................................................................................21
`
`Consol. Freightways v. NLRB,
`892 F.2d 1052 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ...............................................................................................11
`
`Deming Hosp. Corp. v. NLRB,
`665 F.3d 196 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................11
`
`Domnister v. Exclusive Ambulette, Inc.,
`2008 WL 2157115 (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2008) ...........................................................................7
`
`Donovan v. OSHRC,
`713 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1983).....................................................................................................18
`
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Ellis v. Tribune Television Co.,
`443 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006)...........................................................................................18, 19, 21
`
`Farrell Lines Inc. v. Columbus Cello-Poly Corp.,
`32 F. Supp. 2d 118 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)........................................................................................22
`
`Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n,
`505 U.S. 88 (1992) .................................................................................................13, 14, 15, 18
`
`Goya Foods, Inc. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc.,
`846 F.2d 848 (2d Cir. 1988).....................................................................................................18
`
`Gustavia Home, LLC v. Rutty,
`2018 WL 2198742 (E.D.N.Y. May 14, 2018) ...........................................................................5
`
`Healthcare Ass’n of N.Y. State, Inc. v. Pataki,
`471 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2006).........................................................................................................6
`
`Kolentus v. Avco Corp.,
`798 F.2d 949 (7th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 317
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Kroeger v. L3 Techs., Inc.,
`2018 WL 1357363 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018) ...........................................................................7
`
`League of Women Voters of U.S. v. Newby,
`838 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................................................25
`
`Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of Am., Local 114,
`383 U.S. 53 (1966) ...................................................................................................................11
`
`Local 926, Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs v. Jones,
`460 U.S. 669 (1983) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Mayes v. Kaiser Found. Hosps.,
`917 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (E.D. Cal. 2013)......................................................................................9
`
`Mo. Ins. Coal. v. Huff,
`2012 WL 6681688 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 21, 2012) .........................................................................24
`
`Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,
`504 U.S. 374 (1992) .................................................................................................................23
`
`N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Sec’y of Labor,
`88 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 1996).........................................................................................................14
`
`Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Hudson River-Black River Regulating Dist.,
`673 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2012).................................................................................................22, 23
`
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2009) .................................................................................................................25
`
`NLRB v. City Disposal Sys. Inc.,
`465 U.S. 822 (1984) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`NLRB v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co.,
`651 F.2d 442 (6th Cir. 1981) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Pa. Nurses Ass’n v. Pa. State Educ. Ass’n,
`90 F.3d 797 (3d Cir. 1996)...........................................................................................11, 12, 13
`
`Palmer v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`498 F. Supp. 3d 359 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) .........................................................4, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21
`
`Platt v. Jack Cooper Transp., Co.,
`959 F.2d 91 (8th Cir. 1992) ...........................................................................................9, 11, 12
`
`Reuters Ltd. v. United Press Int’l,
`903 F.2d 904 (2d Cir. 1990).....................................................................................................24
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 318
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Rural Cmty. Workers All. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc.,
`459 F. Supp. 3d 1228 (W.D. Mo. 2020) ..................................................................................20
`
`San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon,
`359 U.S. 236 (1959) ...................................................................................................3, 9, 11, 13
`
`Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cty. Dist. Council of Carpenters,
`436 U.S. 180 (1978) .................................................................................................................12
`
`St. Paul Park Refining Co. v. NLRB,
`929 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 2019) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entm’t, Inc.,
`60 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 1995).........................................................................................................24
`
`United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs,
`383 U.S. 715 (1966) .................................................................................................................22
`
`Valley View Health Care, Inc. v. Chapman,
`992 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (E.D. Cal. 2014)....................................................................................22
`
`Weisshaus v. Cuomo,
`2021 WL 103481 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2021) ............................................................................23
`
`Wis. Dep’t of Indus., Labor & Hum. Rel. v. Gould Inc.,
`475 U.S. 282 (1986) .............................................................................................................6, 10
`
`WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc.,
`691 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2012).....................................................................................................24
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2201 ............................................................................................................................22
`
`29 U.S.C. § 157 ..........................................................................................................................7, 10
`
`29 U.S.C. § 158 ................................................................................................................................7
`
`29 U.S.C. § 653 ..............................................................................................................................17
`
`29 U.S.C. § 654 ........................................................................................................................15, 17
`
`29 U.S.C. § 667 ..............................................................................................................................17
`
`NYLL § 27 ...............................................................................................................................13, 14
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 319
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 .............................................................................................................................5
`
`Regulations
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1904 ............................................................................................................................14
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1904.4 ...................................................................................................................15, 16
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1904.39 .......................................................................................................................16
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.132 .........................................................................................................14, 15, 16
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.133 .....................................................................................................................14
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.134 ...............................................................................................................14, 16
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.138 .....................................................................................................................14
`
`29 C.F.R. § 1910.141 ...............................................................................................................14, 15
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 320
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic caused essential businesses such as
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) to reinvent their operations virtually overnight, and from the start,
`
`Amazon has taken extraordinary, industry-leading measures grounded in science, above and
`
`beyond government guidance and requirements, to protect its associates from COVID-19.
`
`Amazon has not only relied on its team of top health and safety professionals but also engaged
`
`with over 20 leading global medical and health experts, including pandemic response doctors,
`
`epidemiologists, and industrial hygienists, to identify and implement best practices. It
`
`implemented over 150 process changes to promote social distancing, hygiene, and the safety of its
`
`associates, expanded its paid and unpaid leave programs in light of the pandemic, and even built
`
`its own COVID-19 testing capacity and laboratories to test its workforce for asymptomatic cases
`
`of COVID-19. Most recently, Amazon began sponsoring on-site vaccination clinics for associates
`
`and their family members and providing incentive payments to associates who received
`
`vaccinations off-site. All told, Amazon has invested more than $11.5 billion on COVID-related
`
`initiatives to keep associates safe and deliver essential products to customers. These and other
`
`industry-leading measures taken by Amazon have made a positive difference. In late March 2020,
`
`the New York City Sheriff’s Office—charged by the Mayor with enforcing COVID-19 safety
`
`requirements—conducted an unannounced inspection of Amazon’s JFK8 fulfilment center on
`
`Staten Island and concluded that “[t]he facility appeared to go above and beyond the current
`
`compliance requirements.” In October 2020, the COVID-19 infection rate among Amazon front-
`
`line employees in New York was half that of New York’s general population.
`
`All of this was not enough for the Office of the New York Attorney General (“OAG”),
`
`which, for over a year, has unlawfully attempted to subject Amazon’s JFK8 fulfillment center in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 321
`
`
`
`Staten Island and DBK1 delivery station in Queens to state oversight of activities governed
`
`exclusively by federal law and enforced by federal regulators. After Amazon disciplined one
`
`employee, Derek Palmer, for repeatedly violating Amazon’s social distancing rules, and
`
`terminated the employment of another employee, Christian Smalls, for willfully violating a
`
`quarantine order following a potential COVID-19 exposure, the OAG began and conducted an 11-
`
`month long investigation into supposed workplace safety violations at those facilities and supposed
`
`“retaliation” against Mr. Palmer and Mr. Smalls for their actions in organizing protests of working
`
`conditions. The allegations the OAG has made against Amazon were, and are, entirely baseless—
`
`Amazon has developed and implemented industry-leading COVID-19 workplace-safety measures
`
`that far exceed what is required by law, and go well beyond measures that the OAG has deemed
`
`“comprehensive” when defending, in other litigation, the New York State Courts’ reasonable, but
`
`more limited, workplace safety response to COVID-19. Moreover, Amazon was fully justified in
`
`taking disciplinary actions against Mr. Smalls and Mr. Palmer for violating workplace safety rules
`
`and endangering the health and safety of other employees. But more fundamentally, the OAG
`
`lacks the legal authority it purports to wield against Amazon.
`
`Congress has entrusted the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health
`
`Administration (“OSHA”) with regulating occupational health and safety—including COVID-19
`
`workplace safety practices—and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) with regulating
`
`labor practices, including the rights of employees to engage in concerted activity. The OAG’s
`
`investigation of and lawsuit against Amazon improperly seek to undermine and supplant these
`
`federal laws and regulations, and to substitute the OAG’s judgment for that of Congress, OSHA,
`
`and the NLRB. The OAG’s exercise of regulatory authority is unlawful and should be enjoined.
`
`First, the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) preempts the OAG from exercising
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 322
`
`
`
`regulatory authority over claims of retaliation against Mr. Smalls and Mr. Palmer for their protests
`
`of working conditions at JFK8. The OAG’s retaliation claims arise out of events already being
`
`litigated before the NLRB—and if the NLRB even “arguably” has jurisdiction over a matter, that
`
`jurisdiction is “exclusive” and “state jurisdiction . . . must yield.” San Diego Bldg. Trades Council
`
`v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244–46 (1959). In fact, hours after Amazon terminated Mr. Smalls’s
`
`employment, the New York Attorney General publicly “call[ed] on the National Labor Relations
`
`Board” to investigate the incident, ¶ 26; Ex. 19, thus acknowledging the NLRB’s jurisdiction.1
`
`Second, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) preempts the OAG’s
`
`use of New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) § 200 to regulate COVID-19 workplace safety. In 1975,
`
`New York expressly disclaimed authority to promulgate occupational safety and health standards
`
`in areas under OSHA’s regulation. OSHA’s standards for, inter alia, personal protective
`
`equipment (“PPE”) and sanitation, as well as employers’ obligations under the OSH Act’s general
`
`duty clause, govern the operations of private employers, such as Amazon, in response to COVID-
`
`19. Because OSHA unquestionably can regulate COVID-19 workplace safety under its existing
`
`standards—and has been doing so since the start of the pandemic—it is clear that New York cannot
`
`enforce state workplace safety standards for the same COVID-19 issues against private employers.
`
`Third, even if not preempted by the OSH Act, the OAG’s attempt to exercise regulatory
`
`authority over Amazon’s health-and-safety response to COVID-19 goes to the heart of OSHA’s
`
`expertise and discretion and thus impermissibly seeks to regulate an area over which OSHA has
`
`primary jurisdiction. In Palmer v. Amazon.com, Inc., 498 F. Supp. 3d 359 (E.D.N.Y. 2020), this
`
`Court held that a NYLL § 200 claim concerning COVID-19 workplace safety practices at JFK8
`
`
` 1 References to “¶ __” are to Plaintiff’s Rule 56.1 Statement, submitted herewith. All Exhibits refer to those
`attached to the Declaration of Jason C. Schwartz, dated June 18, 2021.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 323
`
`
`
`was within OSHA’s primary jurisdiction. Id. at 368–71. That holding applies equally here.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Amazon respectfully requests summary judgment granting a declaration that
`
`the OAG’s use of state law to regulate Amazon’s COVID-19 workplace safety response and claims
`
`of retaliation is preempted by federal law and subject to the primary jurisdiction of federal
`
`regulators, and an injunction against the OAG’s ongoing disregard of federal law.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This case arises from the OAG’s unlawful attempts to subject Amazon to state oversight
`
`of activities governed by federal law and assigned to the jurisdiction of federal regulators. The
`
`material facts are not in dispute. Amazon is an essential business. At its JFK8 fulfillment center
`
`in Staten Island and its DBK1 delivery station in Queens, Amazon provides much-needed supplies
`
`and jobs in its communities. ¶ 2; Ex. 1; Ex. 2 ¶¶ 43–46. In March 2020, two associates at JFK8,
`
`Derrick Palmer and Christian Smalls, organized and participated in protests of Amazon’s COVID-
`
`19 workplace safety-measures at JFK8. ¶¶ 20–21; Ex. 16 ¶ 84; Ex 17 at 661:4–662:15. Amazon
`
`subsequently terminated Mr. Smalls’s employment and issued a final written warning to Mr.
`
`Palmer.2 ¶¶ 22–23; Ex. 2 ¶ 89; Ex. 16 ¶ 84. Although the parties dispute Amazon’s motivations
`
`for these disciplinary actions, that dispute is immaterial to the issues of federal law in this motion.
`
`Within hours of Mr. Smalls’s termination, the OAG publicly announced that Amazon’s
`
`actions were “immoral and inhumane” and opened an investigation that dragged on for 11 months.
`
`¶¶ 1, 26; Ex. 1; Ex. 2 ¶ 43; Ex. 19. Amazon provided the OAG with information about Amazon’s
`
`efforts to protect its workers against COVID-19, as well as documentation of its reasons for taking
`
`disciplinary action against Mr. Smalls and Mr. Palmer. ¶¶ 3–4; Ex. 3. Amazon cooperated with
`
`
` 2 Amazon issued Mr. Palmer a final written warning “for violating JFK8’s social distancing policy,” and terminated
`Mr. Smalls’s employment for “violating” an order to “quarantine” due to a potential COVID-19 exposure and
`“Amazon’s social distancing requirements.” Ex. 2 ¶¶ 89, 94 (“OAG Am. Compl.”).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 324
`
`
`
`the OAG’s investigation, but made clear that the investigation was intruding on areas governed
`
`exclusively by federal law and within the jurisdiction of federal regulators. ¶ 9; Ex. 6 at 15.
`
`As the OAG continued to press its investigation and threatened to sue Amazon if it did not
`
`agree to a list of demands, Amazon commenced this action, on February 12, 2021, seeking
`
`injunctive and declaratory relief from the OAG’s unlawful regulation of Amazon’s COVID-19
`
`response. On February 16, 2021, the OAG filed its own lawsuit against Amazon in the New York
`
`Supreme Court. ¶ 14; Ex. 10. The OAG alleges that Amazon failed to provide its employees with
`
`“reasonable and adequate protection” against COVID-19 in violation of NYLL § 200, and
`
`retaliated against Mr. Palmer and Mr. Smalls in violation of NYLL §§ 215 and 740. ¶¶ 30, 45;
`
`Ex. 2 ¶¶ 3, 120–55.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A court shall “grant summary judgment when the ‘movant shows that there is no genuine
`
`dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Gustavia
`
`Home, LLC v. Rutty, 2018 WL 2198742, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. May 14, 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`56(a)). The decision to grant a declaratory judgment lies within the discretion of a district court,
`
`which “must consider whether the judgment would clarify the issues involved and finalize the
`
`controversy so as to offer relief from uncertainty.” Am. Transit Ins. Co. v. Bilyk, 2021 WL 216673,
`
`at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2021). To obtain a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must show (1) that
`
`he has been irreparably injured; (2) that remedies at law are inadequate; (3) that the balance of
`
`hardships weighs in his favor; and (4) that the public interest weighs in favor of injunctive relief.
`
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 325
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. The OAG’s Attempt To Regulate Claims Of Retaliation Against Employees Who
`Protested Working Conditions Is Preempted By The NLRA And Falls Within The
`Exclusive Jurisdiction Of The NLRB.
`
`The NLRA divests the OAG of jurisdiction over claims of retaliation against Mr. Smalls
`
`and Mr. Palmer for protesting working conditions at JFK8. It is “settled” that “States may not
`
`regulate activity that the NLRA protects, prohibits, or arguably protects or prohibits.” Wis. Dep’t
`
`of Indus., Labor & Hum. Rel. v. Gould Inc., 475 U.S. 282, 286 (1986). So powerful is this
`
`preemption doctrine, known as Garmon preemption, that it “prevents States not only from setting
`
`forth standards of conduct inconsistent with the substantive requirements of the NLRA, but also
`
`from providing their own regulatory or judicial remedies for conduct prohibited or arguably
`
`prohibited by the Act.” Id. The doctrine is “designed to prevent conflict in its broadest sense with
`
`the complex and interrelated federal scheme of law, remedy, and administration.” Id. (emphasis
`
`added); see Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1337 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (noting
`
`the NLRA’s “broad field of pre-emption”). Where the NLRB even “arguably” has jurisdiction
`
`over a matter, that jurisdiction is “exclusive,” and States are divested of jurisdiction. Amalgamated
`
`Ass’n of St., Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Emps. of Am. v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 276, 292 (1971).
`
`The Second Circuit has articulated a three-step inquiry to identify the “many different
`
`concerns and situations” that Garmon covers. Healthcare Ass’n of N.Y. State, Inc. v. Pataki, 471
`
`F.3d 87, 95 (2d Cir. 2006). Courts consider whether: (1) “any specific provision of sections 7 or 8
`
`of the NLRA actually or arguably prohibits or protects the conduct that is the subject of state
`
`regulation,” (2) “the controversy is identical to one that the aggrieved party could bring . . . before
`
`the NLRB,” and (3) “the regulated conduct touches interests deeply rooted in local feeling and
`
`responsibility.” Id. at 96 (cleaned up). All three steps establish NLRA preemption here.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 326
`
`
`
`A. The NLRA Protects And Prohibits The Activity The OAG Purports To Regulate.
`
`The activity that the OAG seeks to regulate is protected and prohibited by the NLRA.
`
`Section 7 of the NLRA protects employees who “engage in . . . concerted activities for the purpose
`
`of . . . mutual aid or protection,” 29 U.S.C. § 157, and Section 8 prohibits employers from
`
`retaliating against employees who engage in such conduct, id. § 158(a)(1). As a result, a state-law
`
`claim for retaliation against an employee for engaging in activity which, at least arguably, qualifies
`
`as protected “concerted activity” under the NLRA cannot stand. See, e.g., Kroeger v. L3 Techs.,
`
`Inc., 2018 WL 1357363, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018) (NLRA preempts state-law claims of
`
`“retaliat[ion] . . . for engaging in NLRA-protected activities”); Domnister v. Exclusive Ambulette,
`
`Inc., 2008 WL 2157115, at *2–3 (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2008) (similar).
`
`The activity that the OAG attempts to regulate is alleged retaliation against employees for
`
`protests and whistleblowing. Specifically, the OAG alleges that Amazon disciplined Mr. Palmer
`
`and terminated Mr. Smalls for engaging in the following protected activity: (1) Mr. Smalls and
`
`Mr. Palmer, “along with 8 to 15 other associates, approached JFK8 managers” and “communicated
`
`their concerns” regarding Amazon’s cleaning and contact tracing procedures; (2) Mr. Smalls
`
`“reiterated” complaints on behalf of associates in a “smaller meeting” with managers; (3) Mr.
`
`Smalls and Mr. Palmer “contacted the CDC” and “notified Amazon” of their call campaign; and
`
`(4) on March 30, Mr. Smalls and Mr. Palmer “participated in a protest outside JFK8” with other
`
`associates “to call further attention to their health and safety concerns.” ¶ 31; Ex. 2 ¶¶ 81–83, 88.
`
`The OAG contends that Amazon’s disciplinary actions against Mr. Palmer and Mr. Smalls
`
`constitute retaliation in violation of NYLL §§ 215 and 740. ¶ 30; Ex. 2 ¶¶ 120–55.
`
`Although the Court need only conclude that the OAG’s allegations of retaliation
`
`“arguably” fall within the scope of the NLRA to grant Amazon relief, the facts indicate that the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00767-BMC Document 33-1 Filed 06/18/21 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 327
`
`
`
`activity the OAG purports to regulate is plainly protected and prohibited by the NLRA. The
`
`OAG’s allegations make clear that Mr. Smalls and Mr. Palmer necessarily “joined together” with
`
`their fellow associates for “the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection,” NLRB v. City Disposal
`
`Sys. Inc., 465 U.S. 822, 830 (1984)—the hallmarks of NLRA-protected “concerted activity.”
`
`Courts have long held that complaints regarding workplace safety qualify as “concerted activity,”
`
`and retaliation for engaging in such concerted activity is an unfair labor practice under the NLRA.
`
`See, e.g., St. Paul Park Refining Co. v. NLRB, 929 F.3d 610, 616 (8th Cir. 2019); NLRB v. Lloyd
`
`A. Fry Roofing Co., 651 F.2d 442, 445 (6th Cir. 1981). Indeed, the Attorney General herself issued
`
`a public statement “calling on the National Labor Relations Board” to investigate Amazon’s
`
`termination of Mr