Court to California companies: Give workers a chair
SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court made it more difficult Monday for companies to deny employees a seat while they work.
In response to class-action lawsuits against retail stores and a bank, the state high court said employers should offer workers a chair when some of their duties can be performed sitting. Employers argued that workers could be denied a seat if portions of their job required them to stand.
“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,” Justice Carol Corrigan wrote for a unanimous court.
The ruling came in a request from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which must decide three class-action cases on the issue. The federal court asked the California justices to clarify state law.
Michael Rubin, who represented workers before both the state high court and the 9th Circuit, said Monday’s decision would have a “huge impact” and affect “almost every industry” in the state, especially retail.
“Employers can no longer force workers to stand at the job all day in a fixed location when the actual job tasks could be performed while seating,” Rubin said.
Most large retailers require checkout cashiers to stand because of a perception that customers regard standing workers as more attentive and welcoming, Rubin said.
He said the class action lawsuits involved tens of thousands of workers in California, but the ruling would affect millions.
The suits were filed by workers against CVS Pharmacy Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and JPMorgan Chase Bank.
The ruling came as more and more office workers request standing desks. Rubin, who works at such a desk, said ergonomic experts say it is best to both sit and stand during the workday.
“This isn’t forcing someone to sit rather than stand,” Rubin said. “It is making seating available for workers to use when they chose to.”
A lawyer for the employers was not immediately available for comment.