Amazon France on Friday lost its appeal of a court order to stop delivering nonessential items while it evaluates workers' risks of coronavirus exposure in its six French warehouses, or face heavy fines.

Amazon said it would keep its warehouses closed through April 28 and keep its 10,000 workers at home on full pay while it evaluates "the best way to operate in light of the decision."

The Court of Appeal of Versailles ordered Amazon to "proceed, jointly with worker representatives," to execute the lower-court order of April 14 and deliver only essential items, such as food and health care materials, until the safety checks were completed.

The appeals court also changed the nature and amount of the fine for violating the restrictions, to €100,000 per nonessential order processed, beginning April 27.

The lower court, in Nanterre near Paris, had imposed a fine of €1 million per day in violation, leading Amazon to close its warehouses April 16 pending the appeal.

While asserting that its facilities in France were safe, Amazon said the new penalty "could imply that even a tiny rate of accidental treatment of unauthorized products, of the order of 0.1%, could result in a penalty of more than a billion euros per week," Amazon said.

"Unfortunately, this means that we have no choice but to extend the temporary suspension of the activity of our French distribution centers."

The ruling was "a breath of fresh air" for employees and "a real warning" to companies doing business in France during the COVID-19 pandemic, Judith Krivine, a partner at the French employment law firm Dellien & Associés, told Law.com International.

"This will be a relief to workers who are worried that they have to go to work because they perform essential services, but are afraid their conditions are unsafe," said Krivine, who represented the French union that brought the lawsuit and several other unions that joined the appeal.

"And it reminds companies that, in France, you have an obligation to consult employees—and that means you have to come to the table and listen to them and work with them," she said.

U.S.-based Amazon is by far the largest e-commerce site in France, accounting for 22% of all online purchases made in France last year, according to Kantar, a market research concern.

The original lawsuit, brought by the French union group Solidaires, claimed that increased demand for nonessential consumer items, such as toys and craft kits, during the coronavirus lockdown had led to unsafe conditions at Amazon warehouses, including crowding and lax enforcement of hygiene guidelines.

"Amazon's work is absolutely necessary for the continuity of life in this country," François Farmine, an employment partner at Clifford Chance in Paris, said at the appeals hearing Tuesday, according to a Reuters report. Farmine could not immediately be reached for comment.

The company also argued that it took precautions to protect worker safety and communicated them to employees directly and through their works councils, called "comités d'entreprise" in French.

In its decision, the appeals court rebuked Amazon for forging ahead with measures without prior consultation with workers or outside experts.

By not adopting a "multidisciplinary approach and close consultation with employees, the most important players in their health and safety," Amazon was not demonstrating a "desire to carry out a quality risk assessment to meet the challenges of a pandemic," according to the ruling.

Those challenges, the appeals court added, include the anxiety that the COVID-19 pandemic is causing in workers.

Sylvie Gallage-Alwis, a labor partner at Signature Litigation in Paris, noted that anxiety damage was "a recognized cause of action under French law."

She cited a French Supreme Court ruling in 2019 that employees could sue their employers for damages because of anxiety about developing an illness in the course of their work. The 2019 ruling enlarged the scope of previous rulings regarding asbestos-related disease.

The appeals court ruling in the Amazon case underlines that "companies should implement measures to address this subjective feeling of their employees," Gallage-Alwis said.

The appeals court also addressed Amazon's assertion that lower court's definition of "essential items" was too vague by citing the categories of items from Amazon's website that would be considered essential and therefore authorized.

While Amazon could appeal the latest ruling to the Court of Cassation, France's highest court, Krivine said she thought that was unlikely.

"The Court of Cassation rules on questions of law, not of fact," she said. "If the appeals court based its ruling on whether Amazon had too many people working in one place, that would be a fact that could be disputed.

"That is not what happened here," Krivine said. "The appeals court said that here in France we have a labor code that means something, and rules that apply to everyone."