NYKEYA Kilby worked eight months as a customer service representative for CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (CVS). During the interview and training process, CVS told Kilby it expected her to stand while she did her duties. Kilby’s duties included operating a cash register, organizing and stocking shelves, cleaning the register, vacuuming, and gathering shopping baskets. CVS did not provide Kilby a seat for these tasks.
On the other hand, Kemah Henderson worked at JPMorgan Chase Bank as a bank teller. While in their teller stations, the bank tellers’ duties include processing checks, and handling deposits/withdrawals. Tellers also had duties away from their stations, such as escorting customers to safety deposit boxes, and making sure that automatic teller machines were working properly. These duties varied depending on the shift or branch location and whether the employee was a lead or regular teller. The bank had a corporate policy of not providing tellers with chairs unless there was a medical justification for doing so.
Both groups of employees separately sued their employers alleging that the employers violated laws which require employers to provide them with suitable seats at work.
California law generally requires employers to provide suitable seats to employees when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.
Both of the above cases reached the California Supreme Court. The court clarified that the phrase “nature of the work” refers to the employee’s actual or expected tasks at a given location, and not to the entire range of an employee’s duties anywhere on the jobsite during the whole shift. If the task being performed reasonably permits sitting, which would not interfere with performance of any other tasks that may require standing, then the employer must provide a seat.
If an employee’s actual tasks at a specific location make seated work feasible, he is entitled to a seat while working there. However, if other job duties take him to a different location where he must perform standing tasks, he would be entitled to a seat during “lulls in operation.” This means the employee can sit down if not actively working on the task that requires standing.
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 important factors to consider but will not necessarily dictate the outcome.
If the employer does not provide employees seating and argues there is no suitable seat available, the burden is on the employer to prove unavailability.
The issue of sitting at work may sound strange for some employees. Why would this be a big deal? Certainly, in some industries, sitting down to work is not an issue. But for those other industries that require employees to stand up while working, a public health issue may arise. According to the Labor Department, “humane considerations for the welfare of employees require that they be allowed to sit at their work or between operations when it is feasible for them to do so.”
* * *
The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr. welcomes inquiries about this topic. All inquiries are confidential and at no-cost. You can contact the office at (818) 291-0088 or visit www.joesayaslaw.com.
* * *
C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is an experienced trial attorney who has successfully obtained significant recoveries for thousands of employees and consumers. He is named Top Labor & Employment Attorney in California by the Daily Journal, consistently selected as Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum.
