|
California’s Wage Orders have long provided that California employees “shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of a seat.”
But, what does that mean?
While the California Supreme Court in Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 63 Cal.4th 1 (2016) previously provided a fact-intensive framework and multiple factors to analyze whether the “nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seat,” employers have had little guidance as to what steps an employer should be taking to “provide” a seat in compliance with the Wage Orders.
On July 19, 2022, in Meda v. AutoZone, California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal addressed this murky issue, and ultimately confirmed that “providing” a seat may require more than just making them available.
Meda v. Autozone, Inc., 81 Cal.App.5th 366 (2022)
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, Monica Meda, was employed by Autozone as a part-time sales associate at the cashier and parts counter workstations for approximately six months. During her employment, she had undeniably used a chair at the cashier counter while recovering from injury. Yet after leaving her employment, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuit asserting a single claim alleging that Autozone failed to “provide” her and other aggrieved employees with suitable seating in violation of the applicable Wage Order.
AutoZone moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff was not “aggrieved” because there were chairs available to the plaintiff at all times. AutoZone’s stated policy was to make two raised chairs available to any employee that needed or wanted one. The Los Angeles Superior Court interpreted “provide” to mean “make available,” and, on that basis, granted summary judgment while concluding that AutoZone satisfied its requirement to “provide” seating under the Wage Order.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment. The plaintiff argued that although her store was usually staffed by five to nine employees, only two raised chairs were available on-site. Moreover, both chairs were generally located near the manager’s station area of the store, and were separated and not visible from the cashier and parts counter where plaintiff worked. Moreover, despite Autozone’s stated policy to make chairs available, AutoZone did not include this policy in its general employee handbook or offer employee training on its seating policy. Significantly, although she admitted that no one told her she could not use the seats, plaintiff testified she was unaware she could use a raised chair at the front counter stations, and never saw another employee use one.
Notably, the Court of Appeal expressly declined to adopt a rule requiring that employers place a seat at every workstation in order to comply with the Wage Order, as “that may not always be feasible given the particular characteristics of a workspace.” But where the employer does not place a seat at the workstation, a seat’s proximity to the workspace and accessibility is relevant in the analysis of whether seats are “provided,” particularly where the employees are not advised that seats are available in a written policy or training.
To use a seat, according to the Court, employees had “to leave the front counter workstations, proceed down a short hallway and around a corner into the manager’s work area—and out of customer view—to locate, and then move, one of the raised chairs to the front counter.” Employees might also “feel uncomfortable taking a chair from the manager’s area for their own use in another location.” Even though Autozone demonstrated that it made seats available, under these circumstances there were sufficient factual disputes to preclude summary judgment regarding whether suitable seats were “provided.”
Key Implications
While the Court of Appeal in AutoZone was careful not to adopt any strict rules, it did provide some guidance on what it means to “provide” suitable seats.
In light of this ruling, it is important for all California employers to ensure effective and well-communicated policies and practices are in place to avoid giving rise to a lawsuit alleging violation of California’s seating requirement.
To this end, employees should never be dissuaded from using any form of seating when and where reasonably permitted by the nature of the work. This can be prevented by informing employees that seats are available for their use (verbally and in written policies) and locating seats nearby or in visible proximity to the employees’ workstations.
Employers should consider conspicuously posting a seating policy informing employees of their seating rights while also communicating such to the employees during onboarding. A detailed explanation of the seating policy in the workplace can prevent employees from erroneously believing that they could only use a seat as an accommodation, such as for a temporary injury. Furthermore, if at all possible, enough seats should be present for every working employee at the same time where the nature of the work reasonably permits it.
Finally, while this decision and prior cases discussing suitable seating have primarily focused on enforcement of the seating mandate in the retail industry, the mandate does affect other industries. As discussed in Meda., employees in professional, technical, clerical, mechanical, and other similar occupations are also entitled to “suitable seating.” See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8, § 11040 (all of the Wage Orders except Wage Order 17 have a seating requirement).
Our attorneys have experience litigating suitable seating actions and advising on related issues. We will continue to monitor case law and other developments in this area.
| 
