Facts

The plaintiffs in this case include four individuals who had suffered alleged exposure to the COVID-19 virus at work. Three of the plaintiffs experienced symptoms while working at the McDonald's restaurant at 4514 Telegraph Avenue in Oakland, owned by VES McDonald's and managed in part by Michael Smith, who is the son of the owner of VES McDonald's (Valerie Smith) and who himself owns MSSD Management, Inc., which operates at least two additional local McDonald's restaurants. The fifth plaintiff, 10 months old, allegedly contracted COVID-19 from his mother. His mother, Yamilett Osoy, is one of the plaintiffs who worked at the 4514 Telegraph Avenue restaurant and in close proximity with co-workers who later tested positive for COVID-19. Yamilett Olimara Osoy Hernandez, Angely Rodriguez Lambert, Maria Orozco, Marcos Ricardo Garcia Giron and Edgar Esteban Sazo Osoy, a minor, acting through his guardian ad litem, filed an action for public nuisance and unfair competition under state law, along with paid leave claims under Oakland city ordinances, against VES McDonald's, MSSD Management, Inc., Valerie Smith, and Michael Smith.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that, in callous disregard of the physical and emotional impacts of the novel coronavirus on the restaurant's employees, customers, and those in the community with whom those employees and customers lived, engaged, and otherwise interacted, defendants knowingly and recklessly, by acts of commission and omission, exacerbated the spread, and the reasonable fear of spread, of COVID-19 among plaintiffs and others in their community.

Plaintiff Yamilett Osoy asked her shift manager whether she could leave work and go home because she was experiencing symptoms while at work. Her supervisor told her that she could not leave until she found a co-worker to cover her shift, so she remained at work. Similarly, employee Cindy Martinez, informed her store manager, before beginning her shift, that she was sick and experiencing symptoms. However, Martinez went into work because her manager told Martinez that she had to come into work as there was no one available to cover her shift. Likewise, plaintiff Lambert informed her managers that she was experiencing symptoms and asked whether she could leave work to go home. Her managers responded that she could not leave work until her shift was over. Lambert, Martinez, and Osoy subsequently tested positive for COVID-19.

Plaintiffs contended that defendants initially provided employees with masks that were made out of dog diapers or coffee filters, and when defendants later provided disposable masks, employees were forced to wash and reuse them until they fell apart. Plaintiffs also contended that defendants provided gloves, but those gloves were flimsy and tore easily. Plaintiffs contended that Defendants' policies and practices created or substantially assisted in the creation of an actionable public nuisance, violated the City of Oakland's Emergency Paid Sick Leave Ordinance and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, and constituted an unfair and unlawful business practice that was responsible for causing substantial, life-threatening, and entirely foreseeable yet preventable harms to the health and safety of plaintiffs and others in the community. Plaintiffs asserted that defendants have an obligation to implement effective measures to contain the spread of this highly infectious, deadly virus. Plaintiffs contended that defendants' wrongful policies and practices included, but are not limited to: instructing workers with COVID-19 symptoms to continue working even when obviously highly contagious; failing to adopt and enforce precautionary measures such as social distancing, to provide employees with sufficient and adequate personal protective equipment such as face masks and gloves; failing to regularly and adequately sanitize and clean commonly used equipment, bathrooms, and high-touch surfaces; failing to instruct symptomatic workers and co-workers who came in close contact with them to self-quarantine, with sick pay, for at least 14 days, and; when workers have actually tested positive for COVID-19, failing to conduct even the most basic contact tracing or proving adequate notification to co-workers who were in close contact and are thus at heightened risk of contracting the virus and transmitting it to others. Plaintiffs contended that defendants failed to implement a plan to require, or even permit, employees to remain at least six feet apart from one another. Plaintiffs further asserted that the thermometer used to take each employee's temperature at the beginning of each shift was faulty and inaccurate.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions and allegations. Defendants prioritized the health and safety of its employees, customers, and the general public throughout the entirety of the pandemic. Defendants complied with all legal obligations relating to workplace health and safety during COVID-19.

Result

The case settled. As part of the settlement agreement, defendants agreed to maintain and implement COVID-19 safety measures for one year, including the creation of a worker safety committee who will meet monthly to discuss compliance with the safety measures and the need for any other measures for maintaining a safe and healthy workplace.