On February 18, 2022, the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Jill LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Company, __ Cal. App. 5th __ (2022), that provides important guidance in two areas. First, the Court made clear that plaintiffs asserting a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) are not entitled to a jury trial. In addition, the Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling rejecting the plaintiff’s suitable seating claim and found that an employee cannot create a “lull in operation” to trigger the provision of a seat by remaining idle instead of performing other expected job duties.
Background of LaFace v. Ralphs
Plaintiff Jill LaFace worked as a cashier at a Ralphs grocery store. She testified that about 90 percent of her workday as a cashier was spent at the cash register. She claimed that during the times when she was not busy at the cash register she should have been provided a seat on which to sit pursuant to a “suitable” seating requirement under the applicable California Wage Order. She brought an action under PAGA on behalf of herself, other current and former Ralphs cashiers, and the State of California.
The trial court initially set the matter for a jury trial, but later granted Ralphs’s motion for a bench trial. The court then conducted a 12-day bench trial and ruled in favor of Ralphs. LaFace appealed both the trial court’s determination that she was not entitled to a jury trial and the trial court’s ruling on the merits of her suitable seating...
Read Full Story:
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-court-appeal-makes-clear-paga...