Skip to main content

Take a Seat: WalMart to Pay $65 Million to Resolve Suitable Seating Dispute


A few weeks ago, it was announced that WalMart agreed to pay $65 million to resolve a case brought against the company in regard to a California law which requires employers in the state to allow their employees to sit “whenever the nature of the work reasonably permits”.  While the law has been in place since 1911, it has been amended and expanded several times throughout the years.  (Bear in mind that WalMart is not the only employer to have been confronted with a suitable seating case as CVS, Home Depot, and Target, among others, have dealt with related claims in recent years).

In this instance, suit was filed in 2009 when a WalMart employee alleged that the company was in violation of the state’s suitable seating requirement.  The company based part of its argument on the idea that the nature of work performed by its cashiers does not reasonably permit the use of a seat as the cashiers would need to be able to move around, greet customers, and look inside carts, among other tasks.  Having cashiers that were seated presumably would not enable them to effectively perform their job, under WalMart’s argument.  Although WalMart denied any wrongdoing, the settlement was reached in an effort to avoid further cost and expense associated with a trial (that was set for later this year).  Under the proposed settlement, nearly 100,000 current and former WalMart cashiers would be able to receive a portion of the settlement.   (The payout per employee would vary, but it is expected that some longtime cashiers could receive upwards of $1,000/each).  Before the $65 million settlement can become final, however, it must be approved by a federal judge.

One of the more noteworthy portions of the settlement, besides the proposed $65 million, is the fact that WalMart has agreed to start a test program in which it would provide a stool for any WalMart cashier in California “who expresses a desire to use them”.  As well, the company has agreed that it would not discriminate or retaliate against any employee that chose to use a stool.

Something tells me that WalMart is not the last employer to be hit with a suitable seating lawsuit.  In the interim, it will be interesting to see whether the Judge approves the proposed settlement terms.


For additional information:  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-walmart-settlement-20181012-story.html

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