Clarification Of California’s Obscure “Suitable Seating” Wage Rule Likely To Lead To More Employers Providing Seats – And To More Class Actions Against Those Who Don’tWe have written previously about California’s obscure wage rule pertaining to “suitable seating,” which requires that some employers provide some employees with “suitable seating” in some circumstances if the “nature of the work reasonably permits it” – and exposes employers to significant penalties if they do not do so.

Faced with a dearth of guidance on the obscure rule and with a wave of class actions following the discovery of the rule by the plaintiffs’ bar, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw up its hands last year and asked the California Supreme Court to answer a few questions relating to the law.

In a decision issued on April 4, 2016 in Kirby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., the California Supreme Court did so.

And the California Supreme Court’s answers to the questions posed to it seem certain to lead to at least two results.

First, many employers will need to reassess their practices and determine whether it is reasonable to provide seats to employees.  This will be a particularly important assessment for employers in the hospitality and retail industries, where employers often expect employees to stand while working in order to show customers that they are attentive and available.

Second, the California Supreme Court’s clarification is certain to lead to a rise in the filing of class actions alleging that employers have unlawfully refused to provide suitable seating.

The questions that were posed to the California Supreme Court, and a summary of the Court’s answers, are as follows:

Question 1: Does the phrase “nature of the work” refer to individual tasks performed throughout the workday, or to the entire range of an employee’s duties performed during a given day or shift?

Answer: The “nature of the work” refers to an employee’s tasks performed at a given location for which a right to a suitable seat is claimed, rather than a “holistic” consideration of the entire range of an employee’s duties anywhere on the jobsite during a complete shift. 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.

Question 2When determining whether the nature of the work “reasonably permits” use of a seat, what factors should courts consider? Specifically, are an employer’s business judgment, the physical layout of the workplace, and the characteristics of a specific employee relevant factors?

Answer: Whether the nature of the work reasonably permits sitting is a question to be determined objectively based on the totality of the circumstances. An employer’s business judgment and the physical layout of the workplace are relevant but not dispositive factors. The inquiry focuses on the nature of the work, not an individual employee’s characteristics.

Question 3: If an employer has not provided any seat, must a plaintiff prove a suitable seat is available in order to show the employer has violated the seating provision?

Answer: The nature of the work aside, if an employer argues there is no suitable seat available, the burden is on the employer to prove unavailability.

The Court explained, “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.”

The California Supreme Court’s opinion should help employers assess whether and when to make seating available to employees.  And employers should review their practices promptly to try to comply with the law.  Now that the California Supreme Court has provided some much needed guidance on the issue, employers can expect that their practices will be challenged, and those challenges will often come in the context of class action lawsuits.

By Michael Kun

We have written several times in this blog about California’s unusual – and unusually vague – “suitable seating” law, which requires some employers to provide some employees with suitable seating if the nature of their work reasonably permits it.  The previously obscure law has become the subject of numerous class actions in California.  And parties and the courts have struggled to interpret a vague law that has little legislative history and even less interpretive case law.

As we wrote most recently in January, the Ninth Circuit essentially threw up its hands and asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether the term “nature of the work” refers to individual tasks that an employee performs during the day, or whether it should be read “holistically” to cover a full range of duties. It also asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether an employer’s business judgment should be considered in determining whether the nature of the work “reasonably permits” the use of a seat, as well as the physical layout of the workplace and the employee’s physical characteristics.  Finally, it asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether the employee must prove what would constitute a “suitable seat” to prevail.

After some speculation that the California Supreme Court might decline to answer these questions, it has now agreed to do so.

While the briefing and argument process will take time, employers in California should finally have much-needed guidance on this obscure law, allowing them to alter their practices as necessary and avoid these class actions.

As for those “suitable seating” class actions already pending, one would expect that many of them will be stayed until the California Supreme Court renders its decision.

by Michael Kun

We have previously written in this blog about California’s unique “suitable seating” law, which requires some employers to “provide” “suitable seating” to some employees where “the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.”

The use of multiple sets of quotation marks in the previous sentence should give readers a good idea about just how little guidance employers have about the obscure law.

The law was originally intended to provide some comfort to individuals working on production lines and performing similar tasks. Few lawsuits were ever filed alleging violations of the law until a published California Court of Appeal decision about “suitable seating” awakened the plaintiffs’ bar to yet another ground for them to file class action lawsuits against California employers.

Not unexpectedly, that has led to the filing of a great many class actions in recent years alleging that employers in a wide variety of businesses had failed to provide suitable seating.

Plaintiffs in these class actions often seek tens of millions of dollars in connection with the alleged violation of the suitable seating law, even where no one ever requested a seat or where the jobs are ones that are typically performed by individuals while standing.

And those cases have invariably involved disputes regarding which employers and employees are covered by the law, what the “nature of the work” is, whether the nature of the work “reasonably” permits setaing, and what it means to “provide” suitable seating – as well as what “suitable seating” even means.

The Ninth Circuit has now essentially thrown up its hands. In two “suitable seating” cases before it — Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Henderson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA– the Court has asked the California Supreme Court to clarify the law.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit has asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether the term “nature of the work” refers to individual tasks that an employee performs during the day, or whether it should be read “holistically” to cover a full range of duties.

It has also asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether an employer’s business judgment should be considered in determining whether the nature of the work “reasonably permits” the use of a seat, as well as the physical layout of the workplace and the employee’s physical characteristics.

Finally, it has asked the California Supreme Court to clarify whether the employee must prove what would constitute a “suitable seat” to prevail.

Should the California Supreme Court agree to the Ninth Circuit’s request to clarify these issues, employers in California may finally have much-needed guidance on this obscure law, allowing them to alter their practices as necessary and avoid these class actions.

Should the California Supreme Court decline the Ninth Circuit’s request, the confusion and ambiguity about this law will likely continue, as will the filing of class actions alleging that employers have not complied with it.

By Michael Kun

We have written previously in this blog about California’s obscure “suitable seating” law, which requires that some employers provide “suitable seating” to some employees.

In short, the plaintiffs’ bar recently discovered a provision buried in California’s Wage Orders requiring employers to provide “suitable seating” to employees when the nature of their jobs would reasonably permit it.  Although the provision was written to cover employees who normally worked in a seated position with equipment, machinery or other tools, employers in a variety of industries have been hit with class actions alleging that they have violated those provisions – and those cases are typically brought by a single plaintiff who was well aware that the employer expected him or her to be standing while performing the job at the time he or she applied.  Just as typically, those employees have not even requested a seat before filing suit.

Now, reversing a district court decision that dismissed a “suitable seating” class action on the grounds that there had been no request for a seat, the Ninth Circuit has held that an employee need not request a seat to be entitled to one.

The Ninth Circuit explained that the district court had read into the Wage Orders something that was not there – a requirement that employees affirmatively request seats.  Importantly, the Ninth Circuit expressly declined to comment on whether the nature of the work would reasonably permit seats in the case at issue.  As before, it appears that will be the dispute in most “suitable seating” cases.

By Michael Kun

As we have written before in this space,  the latest wave of class actions in California is one alleging that employers have not complied with obscure requirements requiring the provision of “suitable seating” to employees – and that employees are entitled to significant penalties as a result.

The “suitable seating” provisions are buried so deep in Wage Orders that most plaintiffs’ attorneys were not even aware of them until recently.  Importantly, they do not require all employers to provide seats to all employees.  Instead, they provide that employers shall provide “suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” 

Because the “suitable seating” provisions were so obscure, there is scant case law or other analysis for employers to refer to in determining whether, when and how to provide seats to particular employees.  Among other things, the most important phrases in the provisions – “suitable seats” and “nature of the work” – are nowhere defined.  While those terms would seem to suggest that an employer’s goals and expectations must be taken into consideration – including efficiency, effectiveness and the image the employer wishes to project – plaintiffs’ counsel have not unexpectedly argued that such issues are irrelevant.  They have argued that if a job can be done while seated, a seat must be provided. 

The first “suitable seating” case has gone to finally gone to trial in United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  The decision issued after a bench trial in Garvey v. Kmart Corporation is a victory for Kmart Corporation on claims that it unlawfully failed to provide seats to its cashiers at one of its California stores.  The decision sheds some light on the scope and meaning of the “suitable seating” provisions.  But it also may provide some guidance to plaintiffs’ counsel on arguments to make in future cases. 

Addressing the “suitable seating” issue at Kmart’s Tulare, California store, the court rejected plaintiffs’ counsel’s arguments that Kmart was required to redesign its cashier and bagging areas in order to provide seats.  Importantly, the court recognized that Kmart has a “genuine customer-service rationale for requiring its cashiers to stand”:  “Kmart has every right to be concerned with efficiency – and the appearance of efficiency – of its checkout service.”  That concern is one likely shared by many employers. 

In reaching its decision, the court expressed concern not only about safety, but also about the cashiers’ ability to project a “ready-to-assist attitude”: “Each time the cashier were to rise or sit, the adjustment exercise itself would telegraph a message to those in line, namely a message that the convenience of employees comes first.”  The court further explained:  “In order to avoid inconveniencing a seated cashier, moreover, customers might themselves feel obligated to move larger and bulkier merchandise along the counter, a task Kmart wants its cashiers to do in the interest of good customer service.” 

While recognizing that image, customer service and efficiency goals must all be taken into consideration in determining whether seating must be provided, the court then appeared to provide some guidance to plaintiffs.  The court addressed the possibility that these issues could be addressed through the use of “lean-stools.”  Acknowledging that the use of “lean-stools” had not been developed at trial, the court invited arguments about them at the trial of “suitable seating” claims for the next Kmart store.  Thus, while expressly refusing to decide whether Kmart employees should have been provide “lean-stools,” the court may have provided plaintiffs’ counsel with an important argument to make in future trials.

And, as a result, employers in California – particularly in the hospitality and retail industries – should now be expected to address whether they could or should be providing “lean-stools” to employees whom they expect to stand during their jobs. 

By Michael Kun

Employers with operations in California have become aware in recent years of an obscure provision in California Wage Orders that requires “suitable seating” for some employees.  Not surprisingly, many became aware of this provision through the great many class action lawsuits filed by plaintiffs’ counsel who also just discovered the provision.  The law on this issue is scant.  However, at least two pending cases should clarify whether and when employers must provide seats – a case against Bank of America that is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and a case against K-Mart that is now being tried in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The wave of representative and class action lawsuits alleging that employers failed to provide suitable seating in violation of Labor Code § 1198 and Wage Orders was triggered by the Court of Appeal ruling in Bright v. 99 Cents Only Stores, 189 Cal.App.4th 1472 (2010), permitting “suitable seating” claims to proceed under California Private Attorney General Act.    

Prior to that ruling, “suitable seating” lawsuits were few and far between.   All it took was a single published opinion to let the plaintiffs’ bar know about this potential claim and to begin to seek plaintiffs to bring these claims against their employers.

Importantly, the seating provisions of the Wage Orders do not require all employers to provide seating to all employees.  Instead, the provisions state that “[a]ll working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.”

As the former Chief Deputy Labor Commissioner explained in 1986, these seating provisions were “originally established to cover situations where the work is usually performed in a sitting position with machinery, tools or other equipment.  It was not intended to cover those positions where the duties require employees to be on their feet, such as salespersons in the mercantile industry.”

In Green v. Bank of America, the district court relied upon this opinion in dismissing a putative “suitable seating” class action with prejudice, holding that an employer need only give seats to individuals who request them – and there was no allegation in the complaint that any employee had requested a seat.  That decision is now on review before the Ninth Circuit, which presumably will determine what “provide” means in the context of the “suitable seating” requirements.  The Court may well look to the California Supreme Court’s Brinker v. Superior Court decision for guidance on that issue.  There, in the context of requirements that employers “provide” meal and rest periods to employees, the California Supreme Court determined that “provide” means that the employer make the meal and rest periods available, but need not ensure they are taken.  That would suggest that, in the “suitable seating” context, an employer must make seats available to appropriate employees, but need not ensure they take them.  That, of course, would beg the question of who is entitled to seats in the first place.

The “suitable seating” trial relating to K-Mart’s cashiers that has commenced in San Francisco – Garvey v. Kmart — promises to look at that and other issues.  Among other things, that trial should address the impact employers’ expectations and preferences have upon whether “the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.”

Plaintiffs in “suitable seating” cases normally argue that a seat must be provided if the job “could” be done seated.  Of course, that is not what the Wage Orders state.  Many jobs “could” be done while seated.  Whether they can be done as well while seated is a different issue entirely.  (One is reminded of the famous Seinfeld episode where George Costanza insisted on getting a rocking chair for a jewelry store security guard; the guard then fell asleep as the store was robbed right in front of him.)

Among other things, employers in the hospitality and retail industries often wish to have persons in some positions standing in order to make eye contact with customers, establish a relationship with them and be in the best position to assist them.  It is too easy for customers to ignore someone who is seated, or not even notice that person.  The Kmart trial should provide some guidance as to whether such expectations and preferences are to be given weight.

These two cases should provide some much needed clarity as to whether and when seats must be provided to certain employees.  In the meantime, employers would be wise to let employees know whether and why certain jobs are expected to be performed while standing.