12 ms·

Amazon is sued over warehouses after New York worker brings coronavirus home

79 points by laurex 6y ago

HenryBemis 6y ago
It is unfortunate that this happened, and good luck proving that in court. Unless the virus that killed him had a unique trace/DNA/something that can show that the cousing contracted this from the employee, and that the employee contracted that from another employee, that she would only meet through work (i.e. they didn't make love, have lunch, take a stroll holding hands, etc.). I am not trying to judge the people, but it is difficult to prove that "THIS" happened only during my "9 to 5", and only within Amazon walls.
- arethuza 6y ago
  Isn't the weight of evidence required in a civil cases in the US not "preponderance of the evidence" - I don't think you need "proof" even in criminal cases. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway_jobs 6y ago
  > and good luck proving that in court Far less than 10% of cases will ever go to trial, so odds are this will settle far before ever going to a jury and having to prove anything. Otherwise I don’t think it is a very difficult case to win, as the other commenter mentioned it’s a civil case so the burden isn’t “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather “more likely than not.” During discovery they would be able to swab and test Amazon for any traces of corona (which I’m sure they would find) and at which point amazon has a lot of exposure and potential liability, which may even include a temporary shutdown to clean all traces of the virus...amazon would never risk that or information getting out regarding their warehouse (thus goods they deliver) are spreading the virus.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Most of the workers time is spent not working. In the literal, it is more likely than not that when they got the virus they were not at work. They'd need solid actual evidence to even meet a "more likely than not" standard.
    - throwaway_jobs 6y ago
      As I said during disco they would be able to inspect the warehouse and if they can find any trace of it (which they will) then that is all the evidence they need to go to a “decider of fact” (the jury). And despite your calculation of time, more time spent outside amazon warehouses does not mean employees are more likely to get the virus outside the warehouse, only that there was more time to get the virus somewhere else. there are “hotspots” after all. But let’s assume what you said was true, to even make that argument in court For a jury to consider you are at trial and need an expert witness to introduce the argument...that’s a lot of cost for a big risk, it settles.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Most of the time I spend not working is spent sleeping. This is probably even more true for an Amazon warehouse employee.
      - roenxi 6y ago
        You can catch coronavirus from your wife/girlfriend/children while sleeping. The virus does not care.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Much, much less probable than catching it while awake, and a very large share of people either sleep alone or live alone.
malandrew 6y ago
If such a case succeeds given how much Amazon is is already doing to prevent coronavirus, say goodbye to economy recovery. Most companies aren't capable of doing even a fraction of the measures Amazon has put in place. If Amazon can be found liable here, pretty much every business in the country that tries and re-open will find themselves liable.
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  > given how much Amazon is is already doing to prevent coronavirus This statement that you've provided as fact is the crux of the complaint. There are multiple reports claiming that Amazon is not adequately protecting warehouse workers. There are reports of whistle-blowers being fired for speaking out about it. I don't know which side is true. It's entirely plausible that both sides are true, and it could be variable between teams and/or facilities. I don't think it's fair to make a blanket statement that Amazon is 100% doing right by their warehouse employees, especially considering the numerous reports prior to all this about said staff having limited timed bathroom breaks.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    Of the multiple reports I've heard of the list of measures put in place, I can't imagine 99% or more of businesses going as far as they have. You can certainly argue that they aren't going far enough. I'm not debating that one way or the other. I'm only arguing that what they have done is far more than I would expect of any business for functions where employees cannot perform their job remotely. FTA: > Amazon is spending more than $800 million on coronavirus safety in this year’s first half, including cleaning, temperature checks and face masks. $800 million is a significant amount and proportionally more than I would expect most businesses to spend, plus Amazon has the benefit at being a technology company that is good at automating/scaling solutions, so that amount of money will go further than what most businesses can pull off dollar for dollar.
- monadic2 6y ago
  Why are we reopening in the first place? What could be more predictable than this result? I hope the case succeeds. I can go onto amazon right now and by a game console. Why? What hope do we individuals have against business if this doesn’t go through?
slynn12 6y ago
This is going to be controversial, but Amazon in my mind is one of those companies that gets a pass. They needed to move fast and get people supplies. If that hadn't, there would have been bigger issues. Very sad all of this is happening, but Amazon should get a little slack.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  In the context of national lockdown, Amazon is basically of national security importance right now as Amazon not working right would’ve killed any lockdown strategy. America doesn’t have enough slack for Amazon to bow out in any way. This should’ve been very clear when we talk about any shutdown — things were never going to work if we all insisted on the same level of sacrifice. Amazon workers must keep working, just as food and transportation workers had to keep going at any cost, and next will be the teachers inside closed rooms with 30 or 40 kids.
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    Isn't it a little questionable that we are discussing one singular company as being a requirement for a country to remain functional? is this peak capitalism, a monopoly has a country by it's throat and doesn't pay taxes in said country?
    - krapp 6y ago
      >is this peak capitalism, a monopoly has a country by it's throat and doesn't pay taxes in said country? It's not actually true. I'm not aware of any lockdown or shelter in place orders which don't allow people to buy food or necessities, and plenty of essential businesses remain open, and also deliver. Also, the vast majority of items being shipped by Amazon remain non-essential goods. Amazon may well be helping people, but their necessity in keeping the country running is overstated.
  - milquetoastaf 6y ago
    Give me a break. America does not run on AMZN. Didn't Amazon lose market share during this? They are FAR from the only online retailer despite their ubiquity - they don't even have the majority of the market.

79 points by laurex 6y ago

It is unfortunate that this happened, and good luck proving that in court. Unless the virus that killed him had a unique trace/DNA/something that can show that the cousing contracted this from the employee, and that the employee contracted that from another employee, that she would only meet through work (i.e. they didn't make love, have lunch, take a stroll holding hands, etc.). I am not trying to judge the people, but it is difficult to prove that "THIS" happened only during my "9 to 5", and only within Amazon walls.

arethuza 6y ago
Isn't the weight of evidence required in a civil cases in the US not "preponderance of the evidence" - I don't think you need "proof" even in criminal cases. Obviously, I'm not a lawyer.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaway_jobs 6y ago
> and good luck proving that in court Far less than 10% of cases will ever go to trial, so odds are this will settle far before ever going to a jury and having to prove anything. Otherwise I don’t think it is a very difficult case to win, as the other commenter mentioned it’s a civil case so the burden isn’t “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather “more likely than not.” During discovery they would be able to swab and test Amazon for any traces of corona (which I’m sure they would find) and at which point amazon has a lot of exposure and potential liability, which may even include a temporary shutdown to clean all traces of the virus...amazon would never risk that or information getting out regarding their warehouse (thus goods they deliver) are spreading the virus.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Most of the workers time is spent not working. In the literal, it is more likely than not that when they got the virus they were not at work. They'd need solid actual evidence to even meet a "more likely than not" standard.
  - throwaway_jobs 6y ago
    As I said during disco they would be able to inspect the warehouse and if they can find any trace of it (which they will) then that is all the evidence they need to go to a “decider of fact” (the jury). And despite your calculation of time, more time spent outside amazon warehouses does not mean employees are more likely to get the virus outside the warehouse, only that there was more time to get the virus somewhere else. there are “hotspots” after all. But let’s assume what you said was true, to even make that argument in court For a jury to consider you are at trial and need an expert witness to introduce the argument...that’s a lot of cost for a big risk, it settles.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Most of the time I spend not working is spent sleeping. This is probably even more true for an Amazon warehouse employee.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      You can catch coronavirus from your wife/girlfriend/children while sleeping. The virus does not care.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Much, much less probable than catching it while awake, and a very large share of people either sleep alone or live alone.

malandrew 6y ago

If such a case succeeds given how much Amazon is is already doing to prevent coronavirus, say goodbye to economy recovery. Most companies aren't capable of doing even a fraction of the measures Amazon has put in place. If Amazon can be found liable here, pretty much every business in the country that tries and re-open will find themselves liable.

oarsinsync 6y ago
> given how much Amazon is is already doing to prevent coronavirus This statement that you've provided as fact is the crux of the complaint. There are multiple reports claiming that Amazon is not adequately protecting warehouse workers. There are reports of whistle-blowers being fired for speaking out about it. I don't know which side is true. It's entirely plausible that both sides are true, and it could be variable between teams and/or facilities. I don't think it's fair to make a blanket statement that Amazon is 100% doing right by their warehouse employees, especially considering the numerous reports prior to all this about said staff having limited timed bathroom breaks.
- malandrew 6y ago
  Of the multiple reports I've heard of the list of measures put in place, I can't imagine 99% or more of businesses going as far as they have. You can certainly argue that they aren't going far enough. I'm not debating that one way or the other. I'm only arguing that what they have done is far more than I would expect of any business for functions where employees cannot perform their job remotely. FTA: > Amazon is spending more than $800 million on coronavirus safety in this year’s first half, including cleaning, temperature checks and face masks. $800 million is a significant amount and proportionally more than I would expect most businesses to spend, plus Amazon has the benefit at being a technology company that is good at automating/scaling solutions, so that amount of money will go further than what most businesses can pull off dollar for dollar.
monadic2 6y ago
Why are we reopening in the first place? What could be more predictable than this result? I hope the case succeeds. I can go onto amazon right now and by a game console. Why? What hope do we individuals have against business if this doesn’t go through?

slynn12 6y ago

This is going to be controversial, but Amazon in my mind is one of those companies that gets a pass. They needed to move fast and get people supplies. If that hadn't, there would have been bigger issues. Very sad all of this is happening, but Amazon should get a little slack.

threatofrain 6y ago
In the context of national lockdown, Amazon is basically of national security importance right now as Amazon not working right would’ve killed any lockdown strategy. America doesn’t have enough slack for Amazon to bow out in any way. This should’ve been very clear when we talk about any shutdown — things were never going to work if we all insisted on the same level of sacrifice. Amazon workers must keep working, just as food and transportation workers had to keep going at any cost, and next will be the teachers inside closed rooms with 30 or 40 kids.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  Isn't it a little questionable that we are discussing one singular company as being a requirement for a country to remain functional? is this peak capitalism, a monopoly has a country by it's throat and doesn't pay taxes in said country?
  - krapp 6y ago
    >is this peak capitalism, a monopoly has a country by it's throat and doesn't pay taxes in said country? It's not actually true. I'm not aware of any lockdown or shelter in place orders which don't allow people to buy food or necessities, and plenty of essential businesses remain open, and also deliver. Also, the vast majority of items being shipped by Amazon remain non-essential goods. Amazon may well be helping people, but their necessity in keeping the country running is overstated.
- milquetoastaf 6y ago
  Give me a break. America does not run on AMZN. Didn't Amazon lose market share during this? They are FAR from the only online retailer despite their ubiquity - they don't even have the majority of the market.