Supreme Court Rejects Employer Attack on California’s Workplace Seating Requirement
April 20, 2016 by Christopher Hammer
The California Supreme Court has issued an important decision confirming the right of California workers to take a seat on the job when the nature of the work allows. In issuing this decision, the Court rejected employer arguments that employees have no right to sit down while working if only a portion of the employee’s duties require standing. (Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (SC S215614 4/4/16).)
California’s Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders have long required employers to provide a suitable seat for employees under certain circumstances, but until recent years, there has been little activity to enforce the seating rule. The wage orders state that “[a]ll working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” The orders also states that “when employees are not engaged in the active duties of their employment and the nature of the work requires standing, an adequate number of suitable seats shall be placed in reasonable proximity to the work area and employees shall be permitted to use such seats when it does not interfere with the performance of their duties.”
The Supreme Court in its decision addressed a number of issues about the seating rule. First, the Court decided that if the tasks being performed at a particular work location reasonably permit sitting, and using a seat would not interfere with the performance of other tasks that may require standing, a seat must be provided. Second, whether the nature of the work reasonably permits sitting is determined objectively based on the totality of the circumstances. Thus, the employer’s business judgment and the layout of the workplace are relevant factors to consider, but are not controlling. Other factors, such as the frequency, duration, and location of tasks, as well as the feasibility and practicability of providing seating, can outweigh the employer’s business judgment. The Court also observed that under the wage orders, a particular employee’s physical characteristics should not be considered when assessing whether the nature of the work permits sitting, although an employee may still be afforded a seat as an individual accommodation under the ADA and FEHA. Finally, the Court concluded that if the employer argues that there is no suitable seat available, the burden rests with the employer, not the employee, to prove that the nature of the work does not permit sitting.
Employers who deny workers seating in violation of the rule are subject to civil penalties of $100 per each “aggrieved employee” per pay period for the first violation, and $200 per “aggrieved” employee per pay period for each subsequent violation, with 75% of the penalty going to the state and 25% to the employee.
The Court’s decision should help those employees in California whose work tasks reasonably permit sitting but whose employer has resisted up until now to allow its employees to sit at work.
The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.
