Meda v. Autozone, Inc.

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: LAVIN, Acting P. J.
• Citation: Meda v. Autozone, Inc., 81 Cal.App.5th 366, 297 Cal.Rptr.3d 130 (Cal. App. 2022)
• Decision Date: 19 July 2022
• Docket Number: B311398
• Parties: Monica MEDA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AUTOZONE, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

81 Cal.App.5th 366

297 Cal.Rptr.3d 130

Monica MEDA, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.AUTOZONE, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B311398

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Filed July 19, 2022

Kingsley & Kingsley, Eric. B. Kingsley, Encino, Ari J. Stiller, and Jessica L. Adlouni, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Arena Hoffman, Ronald D. Arena, and Michael Hoffman, San Francisco, for Defendants and Respondents.

LAVIN, Acting P. J.

INTRODUCTION

In California, an employee is entitled to use a seat while working if the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of a seat. An employer is required, in that circumstance, to provide the employee with a suitable seat.

Plaintiff and appellant Monica Meda (plaintiff) worked as a sales associate for about six months at an AutoZone auto parts store (store) operated by defendant and respondent AutoZoners, a Limited Liability Company (AutoZoners). After she resigned from her position, plaintiff filed the present suit asserting one claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ( Lab. Code, § 2699 et seq. ) (PAGA). She asserts AutoZoners failed to provide suitable seating to employees at the cashier and parts counter workstations, as to which some or all of the work required could be performed while sitting.

AutoZoners moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff lacked standing to bring a representative action under PAGA because she was not aggrieved by AutoZoners's seating policy. Specifically, AutoZoners contends it satisfied the seating requirement by making two chairs available to its associates. The chairs were not placed at the cashier or parts counter workstations but were in, or just outside, the manager's office. In opposition to the summary judgment motion, plaintiff contended AutoZoners did not "provide" seating as required because no one told her chairs were available for use at the front counter workstations, she never saw anyone else use a chair at those workstations, and she was only given the option to use a chair as an accommodation after an on-the-job injury. The trial court agreed with AutoZoners, granted the motion, and entered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff appeals.

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. 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. Accordingly, we reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Background

Plaintiff worked part-time as a sales associate at the store from November 8, 2016, until she resigned on April 18, 2017. As a sales associate, plaintiff assisted customers at the parts counter by answering questions and locating parts. She also operated the cash register, cleaned the store, moved merchandise around the store, and stocked shelves.

Plaintiff estimated that in the normal course of her work, she spent approximately 40 percent of her time at the cashier station and stated that she could do all cashier tasks while seated. In addition, she estimated that she spent another 40 percent of her time at the parts counter and that roughly half of the work required at that workstation could be performed while seated.

Both the parts counter and the cashier workstations (together, the front counter workstations) were located at elevated counters. According to plaintiff, a desk-height chair would be too low to use at the elevated counters. Instead, a raised chair or stool was needed at those workstations. Per company policy, the store had two raised chairs¹ on-site and they were generally located and used at two raised workstations in or near the manager's station area of the store. That area was open (i.e., did not have a door) but was separate and not visible from the cashier and parts counter workstations. Plaintiff observed that the manager often used a raised chair at one of the workstations near the manager's office.

Plaintiff used one of the raised chairs at the cashier workstation for two days as a disability accommodation after she injured her foot, but she believed those chairs were only available as an accommodation. And according to AutoZoners's corporate representative, a store manager could not unilaterally grant a request for an accommodation for sit-down work but would instead need to confer with a human resources manager.

No one at the store told plaintiff either that she was allowed to or was prohibited from using a raised chair at the front counter workstations and she never asked for permission to do so. Plaintiff never saw other employees use a seat at the cashier or parts counter workstations. She did see another employee, who was pregnant at the time, use a small stool to sit on while she stocked shelves.

AutoZoners's stated policy was to make a stool available for any employee that needed or desired to use one. In May 2016, AutoZoners sent a "management action plan" to store managers directing them to ensure that their store had two stools available as needed and advising them that the stools could be placed by the manager's office, at the commercial desk, or by the end of the cashier workstation. AutoZoners did not offer training regarding its seating policy and the policy was not included in the employee handbook.

2. Complaint

On September 14, 2017, several months after quitting her job at the store, plaintiff provided the statutorily required notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency of alleged Labor Code violations by AutoZoners. ( Lab. Code, § 2699.3.) The agency did not respond to her notice within the time provided by statute.

Plaintiff filed the operative complaint on November 16, 2017, asserting one cause of action under PAGA on behalf of herself and other similarly situated sales associates presently or formerly employed in California by AutoZoners.² Plaintiff alleges AutoZoners failed to provide suitable seating as required under Industrial Welfare Commission wage order No. 7-2001,³ which states in paragraph 14(A), "All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats."⁴ ( Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11070.) Specifically, plaintiff claims AutoZoners should have but did not provide suitable seating at the cashier and parts counter workstations. By her action, plaintiff seeks to recover penalties, interest, costs of suit, and attorney's fees.

3. Summary Judgment Proceedings

AutoZoners moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff lacks standing to bring a representative action under PAGA because she has not experienced a violation of the wage order seating requirement, i.e., she is not "aggrieved" as is required for standing purposes. Specifically, AutoZoners asserted it had provided suitable seating because there were two raised chairs in the store and plaintiff had access to them at all times during her employment. The raised chairs were located in the manager's office area which was open and accessible to employees. Moreover, plaintiff had used one of the raised chairs at the cashier workstation after she suffered an on-the-job injury, and she therefore knew seating was available.

Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing she was aggrieved because AutoZoners did not provide suitable seating for sales associates except as a disability accommodation. Further, according to plaintiff, AutoZoners had no formal policy regarding employee seating, did not inform sales associates that they could use a seat at the cashier and parts counter workstations, and did not have any readily available seats at or near those workstations. And although the store did have two raised chairs that could be used at raised workstations, one was located inside the manager's office at a raised workstation often used by the manager and the other was located just outside the manager's office at another raised workstation. In any event, plaintiff asserted, AutoZoners also violated the wage order seating requirement by providing only two raised chairs for all the employees at the store. Depending on customer volume, the store was typically staffed by five to nine employees. According to plaintiff, AutoZoners was required to provide at least five chairs so that every employee working at the cashier and parts counter workstations could sit at the same time.

The court granted AutoZoners's motion for summary judgment. The court focused on the meaning of "provide" as used in the wage order seating requirement and found that "provide" means "make available." Using that definition, the court noted it was undisputed that two raised chairs were located in the manager's area of the store and plaintiff had access to that area. The court concluded plaintiff would be unable to establish that AutoZoners failed to provide her with suitable seating because "(1) AutoZone[rs] had a company policy of making stools available to employees like [plaintiff], (2) plaintiff knew that two stools were located in the store, (3) [plaintiff] never asked AutoZoners whether she could use the stools, (4) nobody ever told [plaintiff] that she could not use the stools, (5) [plaintiff] was allowed to use a stool the only time that she ever expressed a desire to do so, and (6) [plaintiff] had access to the [manager's] office...