California Supreme Court Rules Employees Entitled to Seats
Sacramento, CA: The Supreme Court of California has ruled that employees must be provided with seats if sitting does not interfere with the work they are doing. The decision came after a California employee lawsuit filed by workers at CVS and Chase Bank, who argued they were forced to stand on the job despite California law requiring access to seats where work reasonably permits sitting.
According to court documents, at issue in the lawsuit was the requirement that all working employees must be provided with suitable seats “when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” The question was whether that phrase referred to individual tasks performed throughout the workday or the entire range of duties in a day or shift. Employers argued that if a portion of the employee’s job duties required employees to stand, seating could be denied.
Further, the Supreme Court considered whether the nature of “reasonably permits” should include an employer’s business judgment. For example, if the employer is concerned about how customers react to a bank teller sitting on the job, does that give the employer the right to deny seating to employees?
“There is no principled reason for denying an employee a seat when he spends a substantial part of his workday at a single location performing tasks that could reasonably be done while seated, merely because his job duties include other tasks that must be done standing,” Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote for the court, which ruled unanimously. “Further, defendants’ view could also result in different seating requirements for employees with different duties and job descriptions while they perform the same work (italics in original).”
For example, a stock person and a sales clerk could both spend time working at a cash register, but if an overall view of the employee’s tasks is used, the stock person could be denied a seat while at the cash register even though a sales clerk would be permitted to sit.
The judges wrote that courts should look at the actual work done and time spent at each task when determining if employees should be permitted to sit, rather than strictly looking at individual job tasks or an employee’s overall job duties.
“If the tasks being performed at a given location reasonably permit sitting, and provision of a seat would not interfere with performance of any other tasks that may require standing, a seat is called for,” the judges wrote.
And although an employer’s business judgment is relevant to the determination of allowing seating, the court found that it was not the only factor. An objective determination about seating should be made, rather than one that focuses on whether customers might be offended by sales clerks who sit at the cash register.
The lawsuit is Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., S215614. The ruling came from the Supreme Court of California after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requested input.
According to court documents, at issue in the lawsuit was the requirement that all working employees must be provided with suitable seats “when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” The question was whether that phrase referred to individual tasks performed throughout the workday or the entire range of duties in a day or shift. Employers argued that if a portion of the employee’s job duties required employees to stand, seating could be denied.
Further, the Supreme Court considered whether the nature of “reasonably permits” should include an employer’s business judgment. For example, if the employer is concerned about how customers react to a bank teller sitting on the job, does that give the employer the right to deny seating to employees?
“There is no principled reason for denying an employee a seat when he spends a substantial part of his workday at a single location performing tasks that could reasonably be done while seated, merely because his job duties include other tasks that must be done standing,” Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote for the court, which ruled unanimously. “Further, defendants’ view could also result in different seating requirements for employees with different duties and job descriptions while they perform the same work (italics in original).”
For example, a stock person and a sales clerk could both spend time working at a cash register, but if an overall view of the employee’s tasks is used, the stock person could be denied a seat while at the cash register even though a sales clerk would be permitted to sit.
The judges wrote that courts should look at the actual work done and time spent at each task when determining if employees should be permitted to sit, rather than strictly looking at individual job tasks or an employee’s overall job duties.
“If the tasks being performed at a given location reasonably permit sitting, and provision of a seat would not interfere with performance of any other tasks that may require standing, a seat is called for,” the judges wrote.
And although an employer’s business judgment is relevant to the determination of allowing seating, the court found that it was not the only factor. An objective determination about seating should be made, rather than one that focuses on whether customers might be offended by sales clerks who sit at the cash register.
The lawsuit is Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., S215614. The ruling came from the Supreme Court of California after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requested input.
No Comments