Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE-LAW CLAIMS—E.D.N.Y.: NLRA preempts New York law that sought to expand state’s labor coverage, (Jul 22, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The State Employment Relations Act amendment is squarely preempted by the NLRA as interpreted in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959).

Federal labor law preempts an amendment to New York’s State Employment Relations Act to extend the state’s coverage to entities whose labor relations had previously been subject only to federal oversight, ruled a federal district court in New York. Accordingly, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) was permanently enjoined from enforcing the SERA amendment (Amazon.com Services LLC v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board, No. 25-CV-5311 (EK) (MMH) (W.D.N.Y. July 20, 2026)).

State law amendment. In September 2025, New York amended its State Employment Relations Act (SERA) to extend the state’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. On November 26, 2025, a federal district court granted Amazon’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the amendment.

Currently before the court was Amazon’s motion for summary judgment on its claim that the amendment to the SERA was facially unconstitutional because it is preempted by the NLRA as determined in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959).

Garmon preemption. Here, the court pointed out that no matter how PERB framed its argument, it was ultimately asking the court to overrule—or to invent a new exception to—the preemption doctrine laid out by the Supreme Court in Garmon. PERB readily admitted that the SERA amendment gave it and the NLRB “concurrent” jurisdiction, which was precisely what Garmon disallows.

PERB asked the court to conduct an implied preemption analysis from scratch, as though the NLRA’s preemptive effect were a matter of first impression. However, the court observed that it was bound by Garmon “[u]ntil and unless the Supreme Court itself overrules or limits” it.

Further, PERB urged the court to reconsider in light of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), which had upheld for-cause removal protections for members of “independent” executive agencies like the NLRB. But whether for-cause removal protections are an essential underpinning of the NLRB’s exclusive jurisdiction, as laid out in Garmon, is a question for the Supreme Court and/or Congress, said the court.

Sears exception does not apply. The union argued that Garmon does not apply now that “ending quorums is... a tool of presidential control,” invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Sears v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978). Specifically, the union contended that Sears “blessed an exception to Garmon permitting state regulation when parties ‘lack[] a reasonable opportunity to secure’” an NLRB decision.

However, the court observed that this argument is incorrect. It observed that Sears held that a state court could “entertain an action” that “arguably—but not definitively” involved conduct prohibited or protected by the NLRA when the plaintiff had no “reasonable opportunity either to invoke the Board’s jurisdiction himself or else to induce his adversary to do so.” Here, by contrast, the SERA amendment gives PERB the authority to regulate matters clearly within the NLRB’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Tailored remedy. Next, the defendants argued that the court should “reject [Amazon’s] facial challenge or... provide a tailored remedy” because there are circumstances under which the SERA amendment’s application would be valid. First, the defendants argued that the SERA amendment “is constitutional when applied in circumstances like 2025 in which the NLRB cannot function” due to its lack of quorum. The court found that this was merely a variant of their argument for an exception to Garmon and did not merit further discussion.

Second, the defendants claimed that the SERA amendment’s “grant of jurisdiction... could encompass specific labor disputes that fall under [recognized] Garmon exceptions.” However, the court had already explained why the Sears exception was inapplicable here. Further, the other two recognized exceptions—for conduct that “is a merely peripheral concern of the NLRA” and “conduct [that] touches interests... deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility”—were also inapposite. SERA does not address conduct “peripheral” to the NLRA or rooted in local concerns. Rather, it governs the very same conduct at the heart of the NLRA.

Finally, the defendants contended that the SERA amendment can be applied constitutionally “when the NLRB is enjoined from processing a case.” As written, the SERA amendment applies except when the NLRB “successfully asserts jurisdiction over any employer, employees, trades, or industries” via a federal court order. Thus, the defendant’s argument would turn the statute on its head.

Amazon’s claims moot. The union also argued that the case is now moot because Amazon’s “particularized injury”—the PERB charge that it filed on behalf of an employee—has been withdrawn. This argument failed because a plaintiff can “bring[] a pre-enforcement facial challenge against a statute” without “demonstrat[ing] to a certainty that it will be prosecuted under the statute”; rather, it must prove “only that it has an actual and well-founded fear that the law will be enforced against it.” Amazon had clearly done so here.

Permanent injunctive relief. First, “it is well-settled that an alleged constitutional violation constitutes irreparable harm.” And it is equally obvious that a constitutional violation of the sort alleged here cannot be remedied with money damages. Finally, the state’s “interest in administering its laws without interference by federal equitable power... is diminished when the laws at issue likely impinge a federal constitutional right.... [And] the public interest is well served by the correction of this constitutional harm.” Thus, Amazon fulfilled the requirements for permanent injunctive relief.

Because the court held that the SERA amendment was unconstitutional as a matter of law, summary judgment was warranted, and Amazon was entitled to declaratory relief.

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

Judge: Komitee, E.

Attorneys: Patrick L. Robson (Hunton & Williams) for Amazon.com Services LLC. Julio Sharp-Wasserman, Office of the Attorney General, for New York State Public Employment Relations Board, Timothy Connick, Barbara C. Deinhardt, Rosemary A. Townley, Laura H. Delaney, and Joseph E. O’Donnell.

Companies: Amazon.com Services LLC; New York State Public Employment Relations Board; Amazon Labor Union No. 1 International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Cases: StateLawClaims Labor StateLegislation CoverageLiability Procedure RemediesDamages AgencyNews NewYorkNews