Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Update:
- A New York federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit alleging Amazon broke the law by withdrawing warehouse job offers after applicants tested positive for marijuana.
- On Apr. 12, New York federal Judge Brian M. Cogan dismissed Michael Thomas’ lawsuit against Amazon, ruling that warehouse jobs were exempt from a New York City law that bans certain pre-employment screening.
- The judge said that as the job Thomas applied for included the use of heavy machinery, Amazon was allowed to test prospective employees for marijuana.
- “It isn’t hard to imagine an impaired employee ambling in front of a heavy moving object or carelessly allowing a clothing item to get caught in a conveyor belt,” Judge Cogan said in the order. “This is, after all, a warehouse.”
(06/22/2021)
Applicants to an Amazon warehouse who had job offers withdrawn after testing positive for marijuana are insisting the tech giant broke New York City human rights laws, and are telling a judge that Amazon’s attempt to throw out their class action doesn’t fly.
In a memorandum filed last Thursday in a New York federal court, Plaintiffs Michael Thomas, Romelo Rivera, and Verniece Carmona argued that Amazon.com Inc.’s motion to dismiss their class action lawsuit was flawed, Law360 reported.
The trio is suing Amazon.com Inc. for violating the New York City Human Rights Law after they applied for sortation associate roles at the company’s Staten Island warehouse, and then were denied the roles due to positive tests for marijuana.
Amazon recently asked a judge to throw out the class action, arguing that the role was exempt from the human rights law as it requires operating heavy machinery.
It told a judge the Staten Island facility where the workers had applied was a “fast-paced, high traffic environment” the size of 15 football fields, where sortation associates had to “work in close proximity” to heavy machinery and operate forklifts.
However, Thomas says in his job interview he was told he would only be responsible for packing, sorting, scanning, and putting objects on a conveyor belt. Rivera said he worked in the role previously for four months, and was never required to operate heavy equipment.
The case comes after a May 2020 change to New York City law, which says employers are not permitted to test job candidates for marijuana or THC as a condition of employment.
Exemptions include roles where employees are required to care for kids or medical patients, law enforcement, and jobs required to operate a commercial driver’s license. There is also an exemption for roles where testing is required by federal or state law “for purposes of safety or security.”
Amazon argues that the sortation associate roles are exempt due to the safety and security clause. However, the plaintiffs say the tech giant is contradicting itself because it recently stopped testing all employees in non-transportation roles for marijuana, Law360 reported.
“The company’s primary defense is that the position and facility are so potentially dangerous that impaired individuals pose ‘an immediate risk of death or serious physical harm’ that it is paramount they test applicants for marijuana,” the memorandum reportedly says.
“But it has now stopped testing for marijuana, undercutting its own defense.”
The plaintiffs say they and at least 100 other Class members have suffered lost wages, and they are seeking back pay, damages, fees, costs, and interest.
This is not the first time Amazon’s Staten Island facility has been at the center of a class action lawsuit.
In June 2020, a group of Amazon workers and their families filed a class action lawsuit against the internet retail giant, saying the company put profits ahead of people and didn’t take adequate measures to ensure the safety of workers at its New York JFK8 plant during the pandemic. However, a federal judge denied the workers’ requests for increased safety measures in November.
Do you think Amazon should be allowed to test sortation workers for marijuana? Let us know in the comments!
The plaintiffs are represented by Douglas Lipsky, Christopher Lowe, and Alfons D’Auria of Lipsky Lowe LLP.
The Amazon NYC Marijuana Testing Class Action Lawsuit is Michael Thomas v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01325, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
3 thoughts onDid Amazon Violate NYC’s New Drug Testing Laws Over Cannabis?
This drug testing for jobs that aren’t crucial for drug clearance: Doctors, RN’S; public and private Law Enforcement agencies; airline and private plane Pilots; Captains and Officers on duty on Ships, Tankers and Cruise Liners; Train Conductors; Bus Drivers, you get the point, should be held accountable and get random testing. The job at Amazon? Now that’s just plain ridiculous. Amazon should have to give back pay, pay for health insurance, and enough of a fine for these folks to settle their debts comfortably. If they still want the jobs on Staten Island, they should be given to them. Even Amazon has stopped testing. So what’s their point in prolonging this any longer?
I was hired at Xerox a couple years ago, to work for Apple tech-support basically. Xerox told me as long as I had a prescription, my medication was allowed. I flunked the urine drug screen because of marijuana which was prescribed and they pulled the job offer. They blamed Apple, who does not drug test.
I lost a job in 1979, as an airline stewardess because of Affirmative Action and I was white.
I lost a very good job after bad fall at work and they accused me of being on drugs. I was on prescription drugs and had spent 30 days in the hospital. I ended up having to get 3 shoulder operations. I think it was due to an alcoholic daughter of the company who wanted my job and ended up with it. I was going to sue, but ended up moving on. I didn’t have the time or energy to invest in a lawsuit, which I know I would have won and so did attorney. Daddies watch out for their daughter till they die. That’s why I really lost my job.