Most of the California Wage Orders say:
“All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.”
But no one yet knows how to define “suitable seats,” “nature of work,” and “reasonably permits.” Furthermore, the provision does not leave room to consider benefits and/or negative factors which may come into play depending on whether or not a seat is been provided.
As a basic legal principle, the principle final authority on the interpretation and meaning of a state law comes from the Supreme Court of that state. So, in connection with a pending lawsuit, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has asked the California Supreme Court to clarify the meanings of those terms.
In the judiciary’s favorite game of “pass the buck,” the California Supreme Court invited the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to submit, by August 21, 2015, an explanation of how it proposes those terms ought to be defined. Other interested parties will then have 20 days to respond.
The only thing that’s remotely close to clear at this point is that California employers are facing class action exposure for not following a law that no one knows how to follow. Employers should consider providing seats for employees, if that would be feasible in light of the specific job and work environment. Stay tuned for more on this topic in future issues of Business Briefs.
The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.
Leave a Reply