California court mulls whether employers must offer seating
Employment Law
California's Supreme Court is set to clarify the state's rules for determining when employers must provide workers with a place to sit.
The court's opinion, expected Monday, stems from lawsuits brought by cashiers at the CVS drugstore chain and tellers at Chase Bank who said they were wrongly not provided with seats while working. The companies face millions of dollars in potential penalties depending on the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the rules. The court's opinion would affect other similar cases in the state.
Employers in California must provide employees with "suitable seats" when the nature of the employees' work reasonably permits the use of seats.
The CVS and Chase Bank lawsuits are now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court asked the California Supreme Court to determine whether each task employees perform must be evaluated to determine whether it qualifies for a seat. The 9th Circuit also asked whether the employer's judgment about whether the employee should stand and the physical layout of the workplace must be taken into consideration.
CVS and Chase Bank say the seat rules require a holistic approach that determines the nature of employees' work by considering the entire range of tasks they perform, according to the 9th Circuit.
In CVS' case, cashiers also stock shelves and perform other tasks that require them to stand. The companies also say the employees' job descriptions, the layout of the workplace and the business' judgment about whether employees should stand must be considered, according to the 9th Circuit.
Related listings
-
DJ says taking Taylor Swift to court was only option
Employment Law 08/23/2017The former radio host who lost a groping lawsuit to Taylor Swift in federal court this week said he realizes the case was in the pop star's favor, but he had no interest in backing down.David Mueller told The Associated Press on Tuesday that someone ...
-
Court revives black TV network's discrimination lawsuit
Employment Law 05/13/2017A federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit claiming that a North Carolina city discriminated against an African-American-owned television network. A divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reversed a lower cour...
-
Kansas Chief Justice Pitches Lawmakers on Court Pay Hikes
Employment Law 03/23/2017Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Lawton Nuss is trying to persuade legislators to increase salaries for judges and pay for judicial branch employees. Nuss devoted much of his annual State of the Judiciary address Wednesday to what he described as t...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.