The COVID-19 claims in a lawsuit brought by McDonald’s employees against the owners of an Oakland franchise fall under the auspices of local health departments, not the court system, a July 8 amicus brief filed in the case states.
“Rapidly evolving public health and workplace safety concerns raised by COVID-19 are both outside the conventional expertise of judges and squarely within the technical and policy expertise of the California Department of Public Health, the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, and the Alameda County Public Health Department,” Matthew Adler, an attorney for the Restaurant Law Center, a public policy group affiliated with the National Restaurant Association, wrote in the brief.
Employees allege unsanitary conditions at the restaurant caused them to contract the coronavirus and spread it to others, a public nuisance violation.
Last week, the McDonald’s was visited by county health officials and passed inspection, the brief states.
“DEH has approved the restaurant’s COVID-19 safety plan, has inspected the restaurant in advance of new employee training and reopening, and will reinspect the restaurant in ten days,” the brief states.
“It should be the health experts taking the measures,” Angelo Amador, senior vice president of legal advocacy at the National Restaurant Association, told the Northern California Record. “To bring it to court, to tie up the restaurant in court, it’s not the right approach. The public nuisance law was not created for this type of situation.”
In Missouri, a federal judge in May dismissed a public nuisance lawsuit brought by Smithfield Foods workers alleging the company had not implemented enough safety measures to protect them from the coronavirus.
Local and state health authorities can provide the relief the McDonald’s plaintiffs seek more efficiently and inexpensively than the court, the amicus brief states.
“Exposing restaurants to these types of lawsuits and requests for injunctive relief simply makes no sense. State and local health authorities have the expertise, authority, and resources to handle these issues quickly, fairly and effectively—without the costs of litigation,” the brief states. “There is no evidence that these agencies are asleep at the wheel. Rather, they have acted quickly, decisively, and have done a laudable job working to seek voluntary compliance from the restaurant community.”
In accordance with the findings of the health inspection, the restaurant was given permission to reopen Sunday and another court date was scheduled for next month, Amador said.
“Bottom line, as more and more court decisions come in saying don’t come here first, go to your own health agency first, hopefully it will dissuade people from filing these types of claims,” Amador said.