Seated while cashiering.

[SlufferK]

Jurisdiction

California

I am in california and needed some advice. I am a manager for a fast-food company. A few days ago an employee told me that she was feeling dizzy and asked to set at the register instead of stand. Since there is adequate space to do so, I gladly allowed her to complete her shift seated. She came back the next day good as new and happy I allowed her to set for that day. The main reason I did this, besides conpassion, was a ruling/clarification from the California Supreme Court on April of 2016 in the case Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy. The ruling said that employees may ask to set in a chair, for any reason, to do work that could be done seated, and as long as the seat did not pose a hazard due to the workstation layout. That's why I said yes. Well, employees complained that they didn't think it was fair she got to stand and I was given a write up by my district manager because she said all employees must stand. If it's a public accomindation issue dealing with a disability, it needs to go through our HR department first and they can determine if we should allow the enployee to set. But this is definately not what the court ruling says--it says if an employee, able bodied or not, asks to use a chair for a task like this (cashiering) we must say "yes" unless the chair is in the way or the job cannot be done while seated. Just very sad my reputation, and job, is on the line because of my intreptation of the law. Was I in the wrong for assessing the situation and making the decision to let her set based on my knowledge of the courts ruling?

Take a seat, it's your right

 

[mightymoose]

I won't get into whether your interpretation is right or wrong because I don't think it matters. What matters is that you follow established company policies. Did you violate any of these?
If you feel you have a reasonable argument to make you likely have an appeal process. Are you familiar with it?

 

[slufferk]

I won't get into whether your interpretation is right or wrong because I don't think it matters. What matters is that you follow established company policies. Did you violate any of these?
If you feel you have a reasonable argument to make you likely have an appeal process. Are you familiar with it?

We have zero company policies that reflect the updated April 2016 ruling. In fact, our local HR manager had no idea what I was talking about and only knew of seating accommodations for the disabled. The only policy is if we need accomodations for disabilities we need to notify HR before proceding. Given that the law is the law, and HR will not respond before 3-5 business days, and the law says the employee has a right to set down regardless of ability (asking to set down because you're able bodied but tired is reason enough to be provided a chair under the ruling) I allowed the employee to set. I followed the law, to the best of my knowledge. If I were to say no, under the law, the company could be fined if the employee complained to the labor board. Is my interpretation wrong of the revised, clarified law? Does my company have the right to tell me to do something against the law?

 

[Disabled Vet]

Your company has the right to leave choices of this nature up to HR. Honestly, as a store manager that is a great route for you. This takes the burden off your shoulders and places it firmly on HR. Is the employee asking for a chair still? What is the company doing about this request? When ever there is a concern within the operation of a business it's best the ask those above us.

 

[hrforme]

Agree that you should have passed the liability up to HR and you could easily have referenced the court case since you have heard about it. Not all court cases are directly applicable to the situation and unless you have had your corporate counsel review the facts and circumstances of your situation and that of the court case, your employer is telling you that as a manager you should not be interpreting it and changing a policy without asking. That passes the buck to them if the employee decides to make a complaint.

The better proactive way in the future is to send the documentation of the court case to HR and ask for clarification.

And honestly there are times where compassion can come back and bite you in the butt as you have found. If she was dizzy, you probably just should have sent her home. Because even with a chair, she could have become a WC injury pretty easily (yes, I had an employee fall out of a chair and hit her head on the counter)

 

[hrforme]

Here's just one attorney's interpretation on the court case and if you read it you should be able to see that it isnt' an ALWAYS decision...and that your employer/HR need to review employee tasks and create a policy that meets the requirements or be able to explain why they would be exempt should they be taken to court. California Supreme Court Rules for First Time on Requirement of Suitable Seating for Working Employees

Many other cases on the same issue remain pending and others have been found for the other way. You can't just take 1 court case as gospel and honestly one manager at one location shouldn't be making the decision to change company policy without approval based on your interpretation of the court case (even if you might be correct which may or may not be true)

 

[slufferk]

Many other cases on the same issue remain pending and others have been found for the other way. You can't just take 1 court case as gospel and honestly one manager at one location shouldn't be making the decision to change company policy without approval based on your interpretation of the court case (even if you might be correct which may or may not be true)

Thank you for your help. Although, as a law major just gathering other opinions on here, I am confused how you could say that one cannot take a California Supreme Court ruling as gospel, nor how one could reasonably believe a lower court in the state would rule differently in the future when the California Supreme Court already issued a clarification on if employees may use a chair if feasible (they can!). The case is currently appealed to the California Court of Appeals, but being that they are very, very liberal, it's doubtful they will feel differently.

 

[army judge]

Thank you for your help. Although, as a law major just gathering other opinions on here, I am confused how you could say that one cannot take a California Supreme Court ruling as gospel, nor how one could reasonably believe a lower court in the state would rule differently in the future when the California Supreme Court already issued a clarification on if employees may use a chair if feasible (they can!). The case is currently appealed to the California Court of Appeals, but being that they are very, very liberal, it's doubtful they will feel differently.

The law is as fluid as the element known as atomic number 80, "Hg" = Mercury.
Any case on leave to appeal to any higher court should never be relied upon as law.

That said, unless you're an attorney (acting in the employ of your employer), its best to resist the temptation to act in the aforementioned capacity.

Why?

Those above you often get very annoyed to be lectured, counseled, or advised by their subordinates.

As an old sergeant once told a newly minted "butter bar", "Sir, stay in your lane, always stay in your lane!"

 

[hrforme]

The devil is in the details of each case and situation. Did you even read the link that I posted?
"The court ruled that, when assessing this requirement, courts should review employee tasks performed at a specific work location, rather than all of the tasks the employee performs over the course of a day, and consider whether, based on the totality of the circumstances—including employer business judgment and workspace layout—it is feasible and practicable for employees to perform those location-specific tasks while seated." and then later on in the same article:
"The court set out several factors to consider in determining feasibility and practicability, including:

• 
  
  
  • "whether providing a seat would unduly interfere with other standing tasks";
  • "whether the frequency of transition from sitting to standing may interfere with the work"; and
  • "whether seated work would impact the quality and effectiveness of overall job performance."

Importantly, the court confirmed that this consideration of the totality of the circumstances should include taking into account an employer's business judgment as to whether the nature of the work requires standing. The court explained that "an employer's expectations define the duties of an employee," and that such duties are not limited to physical tasks. To be sure, an employer's expectations must be objectively reasonable, as opposed to a "mere preference," but the court agreed that it is objectively reasonable for an employer to define an employee's duties to include providing "a certain level of customer service," which may be "comprised of different tasks, e.g., assisting customers with purchases, answering questions, locating inventory, creating a welcoming environment, etc." These client service duties "should be assessed, along with other relevant tasks and obligations, in determining whether the nature of the work reasonably permits use of a seat at a particular location."

Just as it is with a reasonable accommodation under ADA, etc. It's not a slam dunk that every employee who stands at work can now demand a chair under this court ruling. Employer business judgment comes into play -- and that would generally be at the level of those making the policies (executive and HR level policy makers), not those enforcing them (local managers).

I am a bit surprised that a cashier at a fast food restaurant could sit seeing that at the ones we go to the cashier is moving around getting the paid for drinks and food (McD's, ChickFilA, Whataburger, Burger King, Wendy's, Church's,etc). I can't think of one fast food place where someone could sit while working, even just due to products being out of reach. And it doesn't surprise me that other employees complained because they were probably having to pick up the slack of the sitting employee.

As a "law major", in one way it surprises me that you put yourself in this predicament of interpreting this against company policy, but in another way it doesn't. Do you have a degree in law or HR? Or even management? What level and type of law are you majoring in? How many hours do you have under your belt in law classes? How many of them are from a brick and mortar university? Just curious!

 

[army judge]

Your company has the right to leave choices of this nature up to HR. Honestly, as a store manager that is a great route for you. This takes the burden off your shoulders and places it firmly on HR. Is the employee asking for a chair still? What is the company doing about this request? When ever there is a concern within the operation of a business it's best the ask those above us.

Simple, sound, wise advice.

Life is never complicated as we tend to make it.

The simplest solution is often the most overlooked solution.