June 12, 2020

The Week in FFCRA Complaints

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), which came into effect on April 1, is a bill aimed at providing a host of stop-gap measures to ensure workers have some economic and workplace rights in the face of the coronavirus pandemic. Among the measures were stipulations for enhanced food stamp funding, 14 days of paid leave for workers affected by Covid and free testing. 

As part of our ongoing coverage of how coronavirus is affecting workplace conditions and employment rights, we are providing a weekly summary of complaints filed to challenge alleged FFCRA violations. These include issues around remote work, caregiving, and workplace safety. We hope to provide you with a list of cases every week and to highlight some of them here to keep you apprised of the changing legal landscape which will surely have a significant impact on the way New Yorkers, and all Americans, will do business in the coming months. 

  • Palmer v. Amazon.com, Inc. (E.D.N.Y.)
  • Amazon warehouse workers and some of their family members are suing the company for failing to follow New York labor law and state and federal public health guidelines at a Staten Island warehouse during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs allege Amazon's actions led to the death of at least one worker and caused other workers to bring the virus home to their families. The suit accuses Amazon of prioritizing productivity over keeping sick workers home and instituting proper hygiene and social distancing practices at its facilities. Following the suit's filing, Amazon told Law360 it always followed federal and state health guidance and complied with all laws. The company also said it has passed all 91 inspections it received from state health and safety regulatory agencies since March.
  • Lin v. CGIT Systems, Inc. (D. Mass) [remote work]
  • Plaintiff, a Chinese-American engineer, is suing his employer for disability, age, and race/national origin discrimination and retaliation under Massachusetts law for firing him to "make an example" out of his refusal to work from the office during the Covid-19 pandemic. Plaintiff has high blood pressure and lives with his 81-year-old mother, who has heart disease, a pacemaker, high blood pressure and diabetes. Three days after he was terminated, an employee tested positive and the entire office was instructed to work from home.
  • Stivers v. Indiana Limestone Acquisition, LLC (S.D.I.N.) [leave for loss of caregiver]
  • Plaintiff, a limestone sawyer sued his employer, a limestone company, under FFCRA and FMLA for not paying him through his approved leave, not preserving his employment, and retaliating with termination.
  • When Plaintiff's mother, the child-care provider of his one-year-old child, was ordered to self-quarantine for a month due to Covid-19 symptoms, Plaintiff sought to take leave. His employer also required Plaintiff to quarantine himself for at least two weeks after he reported his mother's quarantine to HR. Plaintiff's one-month leave was approved and he was paid at 2/3 of his regular pay. However, before the month was over, the employer terminated the Plaintiff, saying it was for "reduction in force," and then proceeded to refill the position with someone much less experienced who required significant training.

Other cases for the period June 3-10 are Winters v. Stone Transport Holding, Inc. (E.D.M.I.) [remote work], Reyna v. Cascade Health Services, LLC (S.D.T.X.) [nursing home employee] Kirkpatrick v. Mathis Battery Co. (W.D.K.Y.)

Returning to Work After Protesting: Employee Rights and Employer Responsibilities

June 29, 2020
No items found.
Some employers may be concerned about the risk posed by the return of employees who have participated in protests to newly reopened workplaces. Similarly, employees may want to know whether their increased risk of exposure could affect their job security, and what their rights are in this situation.

What Employees Should Know About Their Rights to Protest, in Person or on Social Media

June 29, 2020
No items found.
Employees may find themselves retaliated against because of their protesting outside of the workplace, in person or online. But, as the protests continue, and the depth of feeling about their purpose grows, there will be increasing interest in using all available legal tools to allow employees to express their political views off-site while remaining employed.

Berke-Weiss Law Weekly Roundup

June 26, 2020
No items found.
This week we’re looking at how women’s job losses are bad for the hops of a wider economic recovery, New York’s plans for phase three of reopening, and the trend to home birth trends, which we will also be discussing at greater length in a multi-post blog about coronavirus’s effects on pregnancy, abortion, and childbirth, specifically for low-income black women and women of color.

Get In Touch

Knowing where to turn in legal matters can make a big difference. Contact our employment lawyers to determine if we can help you.