Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE-LAW CLAIMS—E.D.N.Y.: Amazon wins preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of New York state law that sought to expand state’s labor coverage, (Dec 4, 2025)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

The current lack of a quorum at the NLRB did not justify an exception to preemption.

A federal district court in New York has granted Amazon.com a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of an amendment to the State Employment Relations Act that extended the state law’s coverage to entities whose labor relations had previously been subject only to federal oversight. The court ruled that Amazon was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the amendment was preempted by the NLRA and that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief (Amazon.com Services LLC v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board, No. 25-CV-5311 (EK) (MMH) (E.D.N.Y., November 26, 2025)).

Amendment to state law. In September 2025, New York amended its State Employment Relations Act (SERA) to extend the state law’s coverage to entities whose labor relations had previously been subject only to federal oversight. Amazon filed suit seeking to enjoin any enforcement of the amendment. Historically, SERA provided similar protections to laborers who were not covered by the NLRA, such as agricultural workers and non-employee contractors. And the State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) served as a state analogue to the NLRB. But SERA expressly excluded from the PERB’s jurisdiction employees covered by the NLRA.

The amendment to SERA, enacted on September 5, 2025, eliminated SERA’s exception for employees protected by the provisions of the NLRA. Instead, SERA now presumptively applies to NLRA-covered employees. The only exception it allows is for cases in which the NLRB “successfully asserts jurisdiction over any employer, employees, trades, or industries pursuant to an order by the federal district court.” As a result of the SERA amendment, parallel provisions of SERA and the NLRA now apply to many of the same employees.

On September 15, 2025, the Amazon Labor Union No. 1 International Brotherhood of Teamsters (ALU) filed a charge with the PERB alleging unfair labor practices at Amazon’s JFK8 fulfillment center on Staten Island (the JFK8 Charge). At the time the ALU filed the JFK8 Charge, substantially similar charges were already pending before the NLRB.

Amazon filed suit following receipt of the JFK8 Charge. Amazon alleged that the amendment to SERA was facially unconstitutional because it is preempted by the NLRA as determined in the Supreme Court’s decisions in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959).

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm absent relief; (3) that the balance of equities supports an injunction; and (4) that the public interest favors an injunction. When the government is a party to a lawsuit, the final two factors merge.

Merits of the preemption claim. The court held that Amazon was likely to succeed on the merits of its preemption claim. Under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, when federal and state law conflict, federal law prevails and state law is preempted.

Amazon established that the SERA amendment was likely preempted by the NLRA, as determined in Garmon and its progeny, the court determined. In Garmon, the Supreme Court held that “[w]hen an activity is arguably subject to § 7 or § 8 of the [NLRA], the States as well as the federal courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the [NLRB].”

Here, no party disputed that SERA, as amended, covers activity that is also subject to Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA. Instead, the state argued that “historically unique circumstances” justified exceptions to Garmon preemption. It pointed to two circumstances in particular: the current lack of a quorum at the NLRB and the perceived threat to the board members’ for-cause removal protection. However, said the court, the “obvious problem is that the Supreme Court’s clear pronouncements include no ‘unique circumstances’ exception. And lower courts ‘cannot and will not invent an exception to Supreme Court doctrine.’”

Moreover, said the court, the “circumstances” the state pointed to here have not yet come to fruition. First, the reasoning of Garmon itself precludes reliance on the NLRB’s loss of a quorum. That case highlighted the need for exclusive federal procedures as well as the exclusive application of federal substantive law. The quorum requirement is precisely one such procedure. And when Congress mandated a quorum, it obviously envisioned the possibility that the NLRB might lack one from time to time, thus inhibiting action. Moreover, said the court, the state provided no basis to conclude that the lack of a quorum will endure indefinitely.

Second, while the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. Wilcox, 145 S. Ct. 1415 (2025), may indicate that for cause removal protections’ days are numbered, the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that lower courts should respect its “prerogative of overruling its own decisions.”

Irreparable harm. The court further held that Amazon established that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief enjoining enforcement of the SERA amendment. In the Second Circuit, the court noted, it is well settled that an alleged constitutional violation constitutes irreparable harm. And Amazon was subject to the allegedly unconstitutional law at issue here, even if enforcement is currently stayed, the court said. Moreover, were proceedings related to the JFK8 claims to advance in parallel before the PERB and the NLRB, Amazon could be exposed to “the specter of inconsistent rulings.” Courts in the Second Circuit have routinely found that the risk of inconsistent judgments constitutes irreparable harm.

The state argued that in an earlier ruling Amazon was granted an administrative stay, which effectively granted its requested relief until at least December 2025 and therefore Amazon was not facing imminent harm. In other words, the state effectively claimed that Amazon’s motion was moot. However, said the court, a temporary stay pending decision on a motion for a preliminary injunction is not interchangeable with the relief sought here, i.e., a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court determined that Amazon sufficiently established a likelihood of irreparable harm.

Balance of the equities. Furthermore, the balance of the equities weighed in favor of Amazon, the court held. When the government is a party, the balance-of equities and public-interest factors merge. The Board asserted two interests that weigh against granting a preliminary injunction: (1) it would deprive New Yorkers of any forum to assert their collective bargaining rights during the pendency of this entire lawsuit; and (2) the Board has sought discovery about the “extent of [the NLRB’s] functioning.” But these asserted interests merely rehashed the state’s merits arguments, which the court rejected. Furthermore, said the court, while the state has an interest in administering its laws without interference by federal equitable power, that interest is diminished when the laws at issue likely impinge a federal constitutional right. The balance of the equities therefore favored relief.

Accordingly, Amazon’s request for preliminary injunctive relief was granted.

The case is No. 25-CV-5311 (EK)(MMH).

Judge: Komitee, E.

Attorneys: Amber Rogers (Hunton Andrews Kurth) for Amazon.com Services LLC. Julio Sharp-Wasserman, New York State Office of the Attorney General, for New York State Public Employment Relations Board, Timothy Connick, Barbara C. Deinhardt and Rosemary A. Townley.

Companies: Amazon.com Services LLC; New York State Public Employment Relations Board

Cases: StateLawClaims Labor StateLegislation CoverageLiability Procedure AgencyNews NewYorkNews