Skip to main content

Employees, Take a Seat...According to the California Supreme Court


Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. - California Supreme Court


Facts:  This case resulted from a certified question from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in regard to a wage order requirement that mandates an employer provide suitable seating for employees under certain circumstances.  The particular wage order states "[a]ll working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats."  In this case, the Ninth Circuit was considering the language and interpretation of the wage order in two  appeals cases, Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Henderson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA.  Both appeals cases involved employees who claimed they were entitled to a seat while at work, per the suitable seating requirement of the wage order. 

Holding:  The California Supreme Court began its analysis of the issue by tracing the legislative history of the suitable seating requirement from 1911 up to the present day.  In this instance, the employers argued that when the "nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats" requires a court to consider an employee's job as a whole and weigh all of an employee's "standing" tasks against all of the "sitting" tasks.  Under this proposal, if the weighing of facts favored providing a seat, the job would be classified as a "sitting" job and the employee would be provided a seat.  On the other hand, if the job was a "standing" job, the employee would only be entitled to a seat under limited circumstances.  However, the Supreme Court disregarded this argument and held that the "holistic" approach was too broad and inconsistent with the purpose of the seating requirement. 

The Supreme Court further held that employers cannot deny an employee a place to sit just because the employer prefers the person stand.  In addition, the employer must consider the employee's work station, not their overall duties, when determining whether to provide a seat.  Consequently, if the tasks the employee performs at a particular location would reasonably permit sitting and the provision of a seat would not interfere with the performance of any other tasks that would require standing, an employee is entitled to a seat. 

Judgment:  The California Supreme Court considered the certified questions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that under the applicable wage order, employees who can perform their work while seated are entitled to sit in the workplace.

The Takeaway:  This is a fascinating read and certainly one of the more nuanced legal issues that I have read in some time.  What does this ruling mean for employees?  In essence, cash register clerks, bank tellers, clerical workers, and other employees in related positions will now be allowed to be seated for at least a portion of their workdays.  Looking at the big picture, this is a relatively low burden to impose upon employers.  Beyond requiring that these employees now be offered a seat, there is little more that an employer would now be required to do.  Some employees might ask whether they will now be required to sit.  Based upon the Court's ruling, I do not think that would be the case.  Instead, employees would simply be afforded the option to sit in a chair if they so chose.

Going forward, this ruling will likely result in the burden being placed on the employer to show that a seat would not be reasonable in the workplace.  Although that might not be difficult to prove, the fact that the employee will not have to establish this fact is a major victory for employees who have long fought for "suitable seating" in the workplace.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Corrigan

Date:  April 4, 2016

Opinion:  http://projects.scpr.org/documents/#document=2783409-California-Supreme-Court-decision-on-employee

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more