Laura Maechtlen Quoted in Employment Law360
"Calif. Worker Seating Cases A Pain In Butt For Cos."

San Francisco office Labor and Employment partner Laura Maechtlen was quoted in a March 24 Employment Law360 article regarding the implications of two recent California Court of Appeals rulings which have prompted class actions accusing retailers of failing to provide appropriate seating for workers. The article explained that the cases hinged on whether not providing appropriate seating was a violation of a wage order. In one of the cases, the plaintiff was able to seek civil penalties against the employer, and in the second case, the court ruled that each aggrieved employee would be paid $100 per pay period for the first violation, and $200 for each subsequent violation. Both decisions have been denied review by the California Supreme Court. Laura pointed out that there are much larger implications if these precedents are followed.

"If employees are able to seek very large penalties for minor violations, there may be more costly lawsuits that are going to wreak havoc on employers in a number of ways that go beyond seating requirements,” Laura said, adding, "The risk of substantial damages also could have an adverse effect on small companies."

“Penalties under PAGA can add up quickly and could be extremely detrimental to all employers, including those with a smaller workforce,” she said.

Laura went on to note that she is advising clients to provide a seat when employees ask for one, if reasonable.

“Employers should make seats available upon request,” she said. “The law doesn't require them to go out and transform every cashier well to provide seats. It should be a case-specific inquiry about whether the seating can be provided when the work reasonably permits.”

Laura noted that suitable seating may not be reasonable for employees who are working on the sales floor, greeting customers or are constantly on the go, and employers can build into the job requirements when certain employees are expected to be standing in their position.

“If employees are meant to be doing active work and not sitting, an employer should communicate that expectation,” she said.

Click here to read the article: http://www.law360.com/web/articles/226435