The California Supreme Court attempts to clarify the state's rule for determining the employees' sitting requirement. The Supreme Court said that the employers must evaluate the tasks employees perform and assign a particular location of the workers place of seating.
According to ABC NEWS, the California Supreme Court said on Monday that employers cannot deny a worker to have a place to sit because they want the person to stand. They must also consider the employee's work station, not their overall duties, when determining whether to provide seating for the employee.
The Supreme Court's opinion rooted because of the court case brought by the cashiers at the CVS drugstore chain and tellers at Chase Bank. The cashiers and tellers stated that they were wrongly denied to have a place to sit while they are working.
The experts even called the Supreme Court's opinion a success for the cashiers and tellers. "When all is said and done, the burden of proof is going to be on employers in most situations to determine why a seat would not be reasonable," stated Stephen Hirschfeld, which is a San Francisco-based labor lawyer who advises companies.
Los Angeles Times reported that whether the employees are given the right to have a seat depends on "the totality of the circumstances." The court claimed that these situations include whether a task can be performed from a chair, whether seating the worker would hinder with the job performance, and whether the physical layout of the working environment is favorable to seating.
The employer may not design a working space to "further a preference for standing." The court also added that the employer must also consider whether it could be reasonably changed to put up a chair or a stool.
"If the nature of the work reasonably permits seated work," the court stated. It also went on to express that the law "unambiguously states employees 'shall be provided with suitable seats.'"
However, the companies involved in the issue argued that whether a worker is owes a seat should depend on a worker's specific situation. For instance, looking at how much time a given worker is spending on tasks needing to stand, including stocking shelves or greeting customers, as mentioned in The Wall Street Journal.
The lawyers for the plaintiffs also argued that differences in how employees distribute their time among their different duties like variations in store layouts and workers' physical characteristics should not be considered. The lawyers claimed that such reasons actually make the complaints not qualified for class-action status.
Meanwhile, the complainants lawsuits are now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court also asked the California Supreme court to determine whether the tasks employees perform must be assessed to determine that they qualify for a seat. The 9th Circuit also raised a question whether the employer's judgement about whether the employee should stand must be taken into consideration.
