Originally published on Workers' Compensation Law Prof Blog. Reprinted with permission.
A recent, interesting lawsuit filed against McDonald's, in Cook County, Illinois, suffers from few of the deficiencies that I have identified in prior postings about public nuisance cases related to COVID-19 (see here and here). The named employee-plaintiffs allege "negligence" in what might look at first blush like a drop-dead workers' compensation case. This time, however, there is a wrinkle: The negligence action is pursued against both franchisor-McDonalds (McDonald's USA) and certain of McDonald's franchise restaurants (McDonald's Restaurant of Illinois, Inc., Lexi Management LLC, and DAK4, LLC). One may be the employer (subject to workers' compensation liability), and the others may not (and therefore be liable in tort). Because you cannot know in advance how the question will come out, you allege negligence with respect to each defendant. This is perfectly sensible.
It will be politically difficult for McDonald's USA to argue that it is a joint employer with its franchisees (and therefore protected by exclusivity) because it has been making the opposite argument at the National Labor Relations Board for years. It may be that under Illinois law McDonald's will be able to walk this tightrope. After all, non-employers may be employers under different statutes in the same way that workers (bewilderingly) may be an employee or not depending on the definition embedded in a particular statute. But leaving the merits of the tort allegations to one side, I doubt McDonald's USA's workers' compensation exclusive remedy argument would be easy.
What I really want to emphasize here are the distinctions between this McDonald's public nuisance case and the now-dismissed Smithfield Foods case. Here the case has been filed in state court — very deliberately, I suspect — and not in federal court. Here a state court judge may have a good deal more sympathy with, and for, local nuisance laws (in-state defendants may also assist in fending off prompt removal to federal court). While the doctrine of primary jurisdiction (possessed by a federal agency) can apply to wrest a state court of its otherwise proper jurisdiction — it has happened in federal and environmental and labor law contexts, for example — there may be unclear questions of important state law that could give a federal court — under various abstention doctrines — pause before depriving the state court of jurisdiction.
On the merits, the most important allegation for me (space prevents going through the complaint at length) is: "McDonald's decision to remain open while simultaneously failing to comply with minimum basic health and safety standards at its restaurants, including guidance from the CDC and other public health standards necessary to stop the spread of COVID-19, is causing, or is reasonably certain to cause, further spread of the disease to Plaintiffs, their family members, McDonald's other employees, and the general public." Hence, the "publicness" of a public nuisance.
Tellingly, the complaint seeks only injunctive relief. The motivation for that limitation is probably to diminish standing problems since the state law remedy in nuisance is abatement, in its essence a very injunctive-like, traditional state law remedy applicable to the community. (Some have asked me whether in the cases I previously criticized, the objective might have been to obtain an injunction, but ordinarily, one must be able to show the likelihood of success on the merits of some underlying cognizable claim to obtain an injunction). This case really frames the state "police power" tension interestingly. We will see what happens.
Showing 2,821 results
Michael C. Duff | May 21, 2020
A recent, interesting lawsuit filed against McDonald's, in Cook County, Illinois, suffers from few of the deficiencies that I have identified in prior postings about public nuisance cases related to COVID-19. The named employee-plaintiffs allege "negligence" in what might look at first blush like a drop-dead workers' compensation case. This time, however, there is a wrinkle.
Alejandro Camacho, Robert L. Glicksman | May 20, 2020
Much of the discussion of the Trump administration's failed handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has focused on its delayed, and then insufficiently urgent, response, as well as the President's apparent effort to talk and tweet the virus into submission. All are fair criticisms. But the bungled initial response—or lack of response—was made immeasurably worse by the administration's confused and confusing allocation of authority to perform or supervise tasks essential to reducing the virus's damaging effects. Those mistakes hold important lessons.
Darya Minovi, James Goodwin | May 20, 2020
Earlier this week, we submitted a public comment to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), criticizing the agency's March 2020 supplemental proposal for its “censored science" rulemaking. This rule, among other things, would require the public release of underlying data for studies considered in regulatory decision-making, and thus might prevent the agency from relying on such seminal public health research as Harvard’s Six Cities study, which have formed the backbone of many of the EPA’s regulations, simply because they rely on confidential data.
Katie Tracy | May 19, 2020
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP) plays a vital role in protecting workers from employers who cut corners on safety or who violate other federal laws: It protects those workers who report such abuses from retaliation, making it harder for employers to get away with breaking the law. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work. The 23 separate federal statutes the program encompasses cover a wide range of corporate wrongdoing, including violations of clean air and drinking water standards, food safety standards, workplace health and safety standards, and much more. If an employer retaliates against an employee for taking any of the actions covered by these laws, the employee may file a retaliation complaint with OSHA for investigation.
Darya Minovi | May 18, 2020
On May 26, CPR and our advocacy partners are hosting a virtual town hall event to discuss the latest research and insights on air and water pollution from industrial livestock operations and their impact on public health and the environment in the Delmarva region.
Michael C. Duff | May 14, 2020
Listening in on Tuesday's Senate Hearing on Corporate Liability During the Coronavirus Pandemic, I was especially pleased to hear workers' compensation immunity discussed. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island specifically asked whether blanket corporate immunity would constitute subsidization of workers' compensation insurers. Witness Professor David Vladeck of Georgetown University Law Center responded that it very well could if workers' compensation were not carved out of the bill. I did not hear anyone contend during the hearing that workers' compensation could not be part of an immunity blanket, which is food for thought.
Daniel Farber | May 13, 2020
Sen. Mitch McConnell is demanding that any future coronavirus relief law provide a litigation shield for businesses, and other conservative and business interests have made similar proposals. So far, the supporters of these proposals have engaged in some dramatic handwaving but haven't begun to make a reasoned argument in support of a litigation shield.
James Goodwin | May 12, 2020
Yesterday, a group of 20 Center for Progressive Reform Board Members, Member Scholars, and staff joined a letter to House and Senate leaders calling on them to reject efforts to attach to future COVID-19 pandemic-related legislation provisions that would interfere with the ability of workers, consumers, and members of their families to hold businesses accountable when their unreasonably dangerous actions have caused workers or consumers to contract the virus. Instead, as the letter urges, lawmakers should ensure that our courthouse doors remain open to all Americans to pursue any meritorious civil justice claims for injuries they suffer arising from companies' failure to guard against the spread of the coronavirus.
John Echeverria | May 11, 2020
Anyone following the news about the coronavirus knows about the vocal opposition by libertarians and other right-wing extremists to government measures designed to control the pandemic. On television, the coverage has focused on angry, gun-toting protesters. But there's another avenue of opposition to the virus-related safeguards, one that's less photogenic but no less divorced from reality. In recent weeks, a number of land and business owners have filed lawsuits claiming stay-at-home orders and business closings represent “takings” of private property under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These takings claims should be -- and likely will be -- rejected based on firm U.S. Supreme Court precedent.