The state Legal professional Normal’s lawsuit towards Amazon — over allegations of unsafe working circumstances at two New York Metropolis amenities throughout the pandemic — can keep in state courtroom as a substitute of being moved to federal courtroom, a federal choose dominated Friday.
The ruling by U.S. District Decide Jed Rakoff is a setback for Amazon’s protection that argued federal, not state, legislation ought to apply for office security circumstances, Reuters reported.
“As we have now contended all alongside, Amazon has compelled its workers to work in unsafe circumstances all through this pandemic, in violation of New York state labor legal guidelines. We’re happy with right now’s determination to permit this case to be heard in state courtroom, the place it belongs. We stay up for making our case and persevering with our work to guard employees,” stated New York Legal professional Normal Letitia James in a press release Friday.
A request for remark to Amazon was not instantly answered Saturday.
In February, James filed a lawsuit towards Amazon over allegations the corporate failed to offer sufficient security measures for its New York Metropolis workers throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and retaliated towards whistleblowers who complained.
READ MORE: Amazon’s Plan To Smear And Silence A Fired Employee Failed: “This Nation Wants To Wake Up”
James opened an investigation into Amazon in March 2020 after receiving complaints about working circumstances at two of the corporate’s amenities — JFK8, a achievement heart on Staten Island, and DBK1, a distribution heart in Queens. The lawsuit stated at the very least 250 workers on the JFK8 Staten Island heart examined constructive or had been identified with COVID-19, with greater than 90 of these workers having been on the facility inside seven days of alerting the corporate of their diagnoses. But within the overwhelming majority of circumstances, Amazon didn’t shut the power after being notified of sick workers, James stated.
Amazon has additionally sued James, saying that her authorized motion was based mostly on “threats and unwarranted calls for,” the corporate’s security measures “far exceed what’s required below the legislation,” and that the federal authorities, not the state, was the suitable oversight entity for office security.