French Court Orders Amazon to Pull Back Operations Over Worker Health and Safety
Lawyers said the court ruling should serve as a blueprint—and a warning—for companies doing business in France during the COVID-19 crisis.
April 15, 2020 at 02:54 PM
4 minute read
A French court has ruled that Amazon France must pull back on its operations and deliver only essential goods such as food and health care materials until it can evaluate workers' risks of coronavirus exposure.
Amazon said it plans to appeal the ruling but in the meantime would close its six warehouses in France from April 16 to 20. The company employs about 10,000 people at its six French warehouses, 6,500 of whom are on permanent contracts, according to the court decision. Employees will be paid their full salaries during the closure, the company said.
The court, located in Nanterre outside of Paris, said the limiting measures were necessary because Amazon France had "failed to recognize its obligations regarding the security and health of its workers." It also said it would impose a fine of €1 million ($1.1 million) a day for each day the company failed to comply with the order.
Regardless of the outcome of Amazon's appeal, lawyers said the ruling provides a blueprint, and a warning, for companies doing business in France during the COVID-19 crisis.
"Companies should not underestimate the strict nature of the controls carried out in these periods, irrespective of the results," said Sylvie Gallage-Alwis, a partner and specialist in employee health and safety at Signature Litigation in Paris.
Gallage-Alwis noted that the ruling and the size of the fine showed that French courts will not wink at safety shortcuts even if a company is providing an essential service.
She said it also sets out standards for companies to defend themselves against claims of negligence: institute proper safeguards and procedures and document them.
"In these times, companies tend to focus on the results rather than on the formalism of the means implemented to achieve such results," she said.
Although the ruling contained no mention of whether any Amazon workers had become ill with COVID-19, the court criticized the company for failing to follow rules and procedures to ensure that workers do not fall ill. Amazon also failed to provide concrete evidence that it had implemented safety measures and trained workers properly to apply them, according to the ruling.
The court ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Union Syndicale Solidaires, a French group of trade unions, following complaints by its members of unsafe conditions at five Amazon warehouses in France. Since the complaint was filed, three warehouses have improved conditions, according to the ruling.
As containment measures have been extended in France and elsewhere, Amazon and other e-retailers are experiencing high demand for nonessential goods, from home-improvement kits to yoga mats, as locked-down consumers look to keep busy at home.
That increase in demand, the union asserted, had led to crowded conditions in Amazon warehouses and lax enforcement of hygiene guidelines, such as social distancing and proper storage of personal effects.
While the French court ruled that Amazon's delivery of nonessential items was within the bounds of entrepreneurial freedom guaranteed by French law, it agreed with the union that Amazon should be doing more to protect worker safety.
The court also found that Amazon did not respect French labor rules requiring companies to include worker representatives in discussions of health and safety measures before they are imposed.
In a statement, Amazon said it has already implemented safety measures, including "temperature checks, masks, and enforced social distancing which have received the approval of health and safety representatives at multiple sites."
Amazon is also facing criticism in the United States over the health and safety of workers as it faces increasing demand for its services during the pandemic.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readIn Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
6 minute readGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250