• print
  • decrease text sizeincrease text size

New York City could see 400,000 workers return next month in first phase of a long recovery

Share this post

As many as 400,000 workers could head back to work when New York City begins the first phase of its reopening in June, as the national epicenter of the crisis looks to begin a long recovery from the coronavirus shutdown. 

Mayor Bill de Blasio on Thursday laid out guidelines for businesses that will be allowed to open their doors in the coming weeks, and estimated that 200,000 to 400,000 more people will be reporting to work in person when the restart begins.

But a litany of unanswered questions remain, chief among them being how those workers can safely get around amid concerns about packed subways and buses being a conduit for the spread of Covid-19. 

De Blasio punted when asked about transportation options for a city so reliant on public transportation. 

“For the next few months, people are going to make their own choices,” he said. “Some people are going to be comfortable on mass transit, some are not.”

New York City is the only region in the state that remains under a full-fledged shutdown order. Officials estimate that some time in the first two weeks of June, it will hit the public health benchmarks needed to kick off the first phase of a gradual reopening.

When that happens, construction, manufacturing, wholesale and retail pickup will be allowed to reopen — but with a host of restrictions meant to reduce transmission of the disease.

“We’ve come a long way. We’re not going to blow it now,” de Blasio said.

Since March, all nonessential businesses have been ordered closed in the city. The resulting loss of tax revenue has cratered the city budget and put New York on track to adopt 1970’s-era budget fixes to fill what is now an estimated $9 billion hole. 

Those industries slated for the first phase of the restart include all construction sites; clothing, electronics, furniture, machinery, printing and textile manufacturing; wholesalers for chemical products, household appliances, apparel and metals; and stores selling office supplies, clothing, electronics, furniture and sporting goods. Regular retail stores will only be allowed to offer curb-side or in-store pickup.

Businesses will be mandated to keep people six feet apart, with only one person allowed in tight areas like elevators and check-out counters. They’ll have to make sure employees wear masks, and check them for symptoms each day.

The city plans to publish a detailed rule book next week, and launch a hotline for business owners with questions, de Blasio said.

Officials will do random inspections of reopening businesses, starting with warnings to correct safety violations that will escalate to fines if they don’t comply. While a handful of businesses have begun to reopen in defiance of shutdown orders, de Blasio called it “idiotic” not to wait for the official go-ahead.

The mayor did not give a specific date for when the restart will begin. “The day it happens is the day the numbers tell us we’re there,” he said.

When that happens, more riders are expected to head for the subway system, where ridership has already begun to rebound from the rock bottom levels it hit at the height of the pandemic.

De Blasio had little advice to offer New Yorkers wary of risking their health with more people on the subways and wondering how they can get around safely.

“You may see people use their cars more in the short term, if they have a car, or use for-hire vehicles for example,” he said “But that’s a short-term reality.”

The mayor said he plans to meet Thursday with MTA chairman Pat Foye and discuss setting limits on how many people the subway system can safely carry. The state-run agency has not given any estimates on passenger limits. Cities like London have said they can only carry 15 percent of their normal passenger load. 

“You’re going to see a certain number of people who their only option is to take a subway or bus, and they’ll need to come back to it,” de Blasio said. “There’s some people who are just not going to be comfortable in the short term. And I think to some extent, it will be a little bit of natural sorting out.”

More than half of city households do not own cars. De Blasio did not respond when asked if the city has any plans to use its own streets to provide safe transportation options. With billions in tax revenue lost to the crisis, he has proposed almost $11 million in cuts to existing bus and bike lane programs.

“He’s planning to fail at this moment,” said Danny Pearlstein of the Riders Alliance. “A plan of inaction is a plan for gridlock.”

This blog originally appeared at Politico on May 28, 2020. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Erin Durkin is a reporter for POLITICO New York and the co-author of New York Playbook. Before joining POLITICO, Erin wrote for The Guardian and was a City Hall reporter for the New York Daily News, where she covered the de Blasio and Bloomberg administrations and the City Council. She also reported on urban development and local politics in Brooklyn.

Share this post

AIEG And Public Justice Join In Fighting Court Secrecy – We Need You In The Fight

Share this post

Arthur Bryant

The past year was unprecedented in the world of auto safety. The world learned of ignition switches that could fail, causing loss of control and airbag non-deployment; airbags that shoot shrapnel into the occupant compartment when deploying; guardrails that skewer cars rather than cushion their impact; and other appalling defects resulting in one fifth of all cars on the road in America being recalled.

Sadly, there is evidence that manufacturers knew of these deadly defects years before conducting recalls and that court secrecy orders helped them hide these defects and keep dangerous products on the market.

This past year, the world found out what we have known for decades: court secrecy kills. By sealing discovery and court records, including during settlements, courts aid and abet companies in keeping evidence of deadly products from consumers.

For decades, two organizations have led the fight against court secrecy: AIEG and Public Justice. These organizations are joining forces to fight the travesty of court-sanctioned secrecy hiding dangers to the public.

AIEG – standing firm against non-sharing discovery protective orders. For decades, the Attorneys Information Exchange Group (AIEG) has led the charge against protective orders that prohibit plaintiffs’ lawyers from sharing discovery documents with lawyers for other consumers hurt by the same product.  AIEG is the leading collaborative organization of lawyers representing victims of unsafe product designs, particularly automotive products. AIEG’s members commit to doing all they can to make the evidence of public dangers that come to light in their lawsuits available to other injured consumers seeking justice. AIEG members have access to the organization’s work product resources for fighting secrecy orders including samples of agreed orders, sample briefing opposing non-sharing provisions in many jurisdictions, and case law in all jurisdictions upholding the principle of discovery sharing among plaintiffs with similar cases. AIEG stands with its members in fighting restrictive protective orders that lock up evidence of public dangers.

Public Justice – Court Secrecy Project fights to keep court records open to the public. For decades, Public Justice has fought for public access to court records about dangerous products – documents used in support of motions, at trial, or issued by judges. A national public interest law firm supported by – and able to call on and work with – over 2,500 of the top plaintiffs’ lawyers in the country, Public Justice often represents public interest groups like the Center for Auto Safety or injury victims to intervene in lawsuits to open up sealed documents and files. For instance:

  • Public Justice intervened to unseal the trial transcript and exhibits showing Cooper knew of defects in its tires, working closely with AIEG members. Toe v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co.
  • Public Justice successfully brought to light long-sealed court records about a defective Remington rifle that fires when no one pulls the trigger. Aleksich v. Remington Arms Co.
  • Public Justice helped unseal records showing a leading pharmaceutical company ghost-wrote medical journal articles to promote its hormone replacement drug. In re Prempro Products Liability Litig.
  • Public Justice intervened on behalf of the Center for Auto Safety, and persuaded the court to unseal its decision sanctioning Honda for its expert witness’s tampering with critical evidence. Davis v. City of Auburn.
  • Public Justice joined and just helped win the fight to open up court records in the Trinity guardrails litigation in Texas, in which a jury found the guardrails endanger motorists. Unites States ex rel. Joshua Harman v. Trinity Industries.
  • Now, Public Justice is battling for access to reams of sealed and redacted court records about defective power modules in potentially millions of Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep Vehicles. Velasco v. Chrysler Group, LLC.

Separately, AIEG and Public Justice have done a world of good, keeping evidence of public dangers unsealed. Together, we are redoubling our efforts in light of the widespread, continuing damage done by unjustified court secrecy orders.

We need you in this fight against deadly court secrecy.

We can’t stand idly by while courts participate in endangering the public. We need to be at the forefront of educating judges and lawyers that it is wrong to keep the lid on evidence of public dangers, the law supports discovery sharing – to provide efficient and inexpensive access to evidence for all litigants, and the law requires that the courts and their records be open to the public in all but the most extreme situations.

Doing your part:

  • Never agree to a discovery protective order that prevents you from sharing what you find with other plaintiffs. Commit to taking the time to fight restrictive protective orders. Contact AIEG’s Protective Order Committee if you need assistance.
  • Never agree to seal evidence of public dangers as a part of case proceedings or settlement. Take steps necessary to make sure public access to the documents are preserved.
  • Contact Public Justice if you become aware of dangers to the public sealed in court records – either trial evidence or information filed with the court. Seek Public Justice’s assistance in getting those records unsealed. Public Justice has fought this fight for decades and can help you in many ways – from providing sample briefs and case law to co-counseling with you to intervening on behalf of a public interest group to fight for public access.

Please don’t do nothing. We can’t have more of the same. We can’t have another year like the last one. The revelations of widespread suppression of evidence of public dangers provide an opportunity for us to educate judges and other lawyers about the disastrous effects of secrecy. Let’s not squander this opportunity. Together, we can help the courts turn the corner on this shameful legacy, and return the justice system to its rightful role in illuminating, not hiding, evidence of public dangers.

Thank you for joining us in this fight.

This blog originally appeared on Public Justice on October 13, 2014. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Authors: Arthur H. Bryant, Chairman of Public Justice, has won major victories and established new precedents in several areas of the law, including constitutional law, toxic torts, civil rights, consumer protection, and mass torts. The National Law Journal has twice named him one of the 100 Most Influential Attorneys in America.

Lee Brown is the president of AEIG, the Attorneys Exchange Information Group.

Share this post

Subscribe For Updates

Subscribe via RSS Subscribe via RSS

Or, sign up to receive our email newsletter:

* indicates required

Recent Posts

Forbes Best of the Web, Summer 2004
A Forbes "Best of the Web" Blog


  • Tracking image for JustAnswer widget
  • Find an Employment Lawyer

  • Support Workplace Fairness


Find an Employment Attorney

The Workplace Fairness Attorney Directory features lawyers from across the United States who primarily represent workers in employment cases. Please note that Workplace Fairness does not operate a lawyer referral service and does not provide legal advice, and that Workplace Fairness is not responsible for any advice that you receive from anyone, attorney or non-attorney, you may contact from this site.