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