Tag Archives: suitable seating

California’s “Suitable Seating” Wage Rule: More Seats – and More Class Actions – Are Likely

Our colleague Michael Kun, attorney at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Wage & Hour Defense Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the hospitality industry: “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’t.”

Read full article

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’t

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.

Read full article

The Ninth Circuit’s Opportunity to Clarify California’s Suitable Seating Requirements

by Lisa M. Watanabe

In recent years, retailers, grocery stores and banks have been hit with a wave of lawsuits over California’s suitable seating requirements set forth in §14 of the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders.  (See http://www.dir.ca.gov/iwc/wageorderindustries.htm for § 14 in 16 of 17 industry-specific Wage Orders).  Despite the surge in lawsuits, there continues to be several unanswered questions regarding the interpretation of subsections (A) and (B) to §14 which state the following:

Read full article

Ninth Circuit Rules That Employees Need Not "Request" A Seat Under California’s Obscure "Suitable Seating" Law

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.

Read full article

Clarification Of California’s Obscure "Suitable Seating" Requirement Should Be Forthcoming In Two Pending Cases

By: Michael S. Kun, as appeared on the Wage & Hour Defense blog

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.

Read full article

California Court of Appeal May Get An Opportunity To Rule On Constitutionality Of PAGA

by Michael Kun

As we have mentioned previously on thisblog, the latest wave of wage-hour class actions to hit California employers is based on a claim that employees were not provided “suitable seating” under an obscure provision of California’s Wage Orders.  To avoid having these cases removed to federal court,and to avoid the burden of establishing the elements for class certification, many plaintiffs’ counsel have taken to filing these lawsuits not as class actions, but as representative actions under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).

PAGA — sometimes referred to as the “Bounty Hunter Law” or the “Sue Your Boss Law” — allows a single employee to pursue claims on behalf of all “aggrieved employees,” with potential recovery of up to $100 per employee for the first violation and $200 per employee for each subsequent violation.  The potential recovery can be enormous, and a plaintiff need not certify a class.

Read full article