Pull Up A Chair To Discuss What “Provide” Means

Seyfarth Synopsis: California law requires employers to “provide” suitable seating to employees where the nature of the work permits it. A California Court of Appeal held that despite chairs being present at the store where the plaintiff worked, and the fact that the plaintiff used one of the chairs for two days, there were triable issues of fact as to whether the employer had “provided” suitable seating. Meda v. Autozone, Inc.

The Facts

Monica Meda worked as a sales associate at an AutoZone auto parts store for a franchisee (AutoZoners). As a sales associate, Meda assisted customers at a cashier station and parts counter. Meda claimed that some or all of her duties could be performed while sitting.

There were two raised chairs at the store—suitable for use at the cashier station and parts counter—but the chairs were not placed in Meda’s work area. AutoZoners did not expressly advise Meda she could use the chairs while working at these locations, and Meda never asked for permission to do so. However, Meda did use one of the chairs for two days when she injured her foot.

Although AutoZoners’s policy was to make a stool available for any employee that needed or desired to use one, AutoZoners did not offer training regarding its seating policy, and the policy was not included in the employee handbook, or otherwise communicated to sales associates.

After she resigned from her position, Meda filed suit against AutoZoners asserting a single cause of action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Meda asserted that AutoZoners failed to provide suitable seating to employees at the cashier and parts counter workstations.

The Trial Court Decision

Under California’s Wage Orders, “working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work permits the use of seats.” AutoZoners moved for summary judgment on the ground that Meda was not an “aggrieved” employee because the store had in fact “provided” suitable seating by making chairs available for employee use. The trial court granted AutoZoners’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that “provide” in relation to seating means “to make available,” and that AutoZoners had provided Meda suitable seating within the meaning of California law.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling, concluding that there were material disputes of fact as to whether AutoZoners had established that it “provided” suitable seating. The Court of Appeal held that whether an employer has “provided” suitable seating may be “fact-intensive” and involve a “multitude of job and workplace-specific factors,” making the issue frequently inappropriate for resolution on summary judgment.  

Three points caused the Court of Appeal to conclude there were triable issues of material fact. First, although two raised chairs—suited for use at the cashier station and parts counter—were present in the store, they were not placed in the immediate vicinity of these work areas. This fact was especially significant because AutoZoners did not advise employees that they could move chairs located in other areas of the store to these two work areas.

Second, the raised chairs were placed in an area where a manager worked, and Meda often observed the store manager using one of the raised chairs. The Court of Appeal concluded this could support a reasonable inference that AutoZoners did not provide the raised chairs for use at the cashier station and parts counter.

Finally, no other employees used the raised chairs at the parts counter or cashier workstations. According to the Court of Appeal, this created a reasonable inference that AutoZoners either prohibited or discouraged the use of seats at these locations, notwithstanding its  uncommunicated policy of permitting the use of seats.

For these reasons, although suitable seats were present in the store, Meda had used one of the chairs when injured, and Meda never once asked to use one of the seats when she was not injured, the Court found there was a triable issue of fact as to whether AutoZoners “provided”  suitable seats as required.

What Meda Means for Employers

Employers should carefully evaluate whether they have employees working in positions where “the nature of the work permits the use of seats.” If so, employers should consider adopting a written seating policy, and making sure that employees covered by the policy are permitted to use the seats that are provided.