Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Wednesday, July 20, 2022

 

Page 1

 

Summary Judgment Reversed in PAGA Suit Over Allegation of Inadequate Seating

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

The Court of Appeal for this district yesterday reversed a summary judgment in favor of an employer that was sued by an ex-employee for failing to provide “suitable seating” behind the counters, rejecting the trial court’s reasoning that stools were available and no one ever told the plaintiff she could not use them.

 Triable issues of fact exist, Acting Presiding Justice Luis A. Lavin said in his opinion for Div. Three which reverses a decision by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daniel S. Murphy.

In his Jan. 11, 2021 ruling for AutoZoners LLC in an action brought by Monica Meda under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Murphy pointed out that, in conformity with company policy, two stools were available, they were in an area to which Meda had access, she never asked if she could use one, and was never cautioned not to do so. She had, in fact, used one of the stools after incurring an injury when she dropped a battery on her foot, the judge noted.

“Meda sat on the stool for two days and was never told to stop doing so,” Murphy recited. “Meda stopped doing so because ‘nobody made it known’ to her that she could continue to do so….

“Based on this undisputed evidence, the Court agrees with AutoZoners that, as a matter of law. Meda cannot establish that AutoZoners failed to provide her with suitable seating.”

In yesterday opinion, Lavin said:

“No published California authority has considered what steps should be taken by an employer to ‘provide’ suitable seating within the meaning of the wage order seating requirement. We conclude that where an employer has not expressly advised its employees that they may use a seat during their work and has not provided a seat at a workstation, the inquiry as to whether an employer has ‘provided’ suitable seating may be fact-intensive and may involve a multitude of job- and workplace-specific factors.”

He continued:

“Accordingly, resolution of the issue at the summary judgment stage may be inappropriate, as it was here. Because the undisputed facts create a triable issue of material fact as to whether AutoZoners ‘provided’ suitable seating to its customer service employees at the front of the store by placing seats at other workstations in a separate area of the store, we conclude the court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment.”

The case is Meda v. Autozone, 2022 S.O.S. 3119.

 

Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company