Do You Have To Count Your Own Cash Register At Cvs When Leaving?

In a much predictable decision, a federal judge in California's Southern District ruled concluding week that CVS Pharmacy was not required to provide its cashiers with seats to employ while operating greenbacks registers. The plaintiff is a former client service representative ("clerk/cashier") at CVS who filed a lawsuit on behalf of all California client service representatives alleging that CVS violated Wage Order 7–2001, department xiv(A) when it failed to provide its clerks/cashiers with suitable seats during the performance of their job duties. Section fourteen of Wage Society seven–2001 provides:

1. All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the piece of work reasonably permits the use of seats.
2. When employees are not engaged in the agile duties of their employment and the nature of the work requires standing an acceptable number of suitable seats shall exist placed in reasonable proximity to the piece of work expanse and employees shall be permitted to apply such seats when information technology does non interfere with the functioning of their duties.

In ruling on the move for summary judgment, the court commencement considered the interplay betwixt subsections A and B, and ultimately held that the two subsections were mutually sectional. In doing so, the court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the phrase "nature of the work" refers to any particular duty that an employee performs during the form of her work. Instead, the court agreed with the accused that the "nature of the piece of work" performed by an employee must exist considered in lite of that individual'due south entire range of assigned duties in order to determine whether the work permits the use of the seats or requires continuing. It is not enough to simply wait at certain tasks in isolation to make up one's mind whether those tasks could be performed while seated, the court held. Instead, the court'due south inquiry was whether or not the job as a whole permitted the use of a seat or required standing. The courtroom held that if the nature of the work requires standing, subsection B applies.

In determining the nature of the work for a clerk/cashier at CVS, the court noted that it was undisputed that many of the duties at upshot required employees to stand while performing them (i.e., stacking, helping customers with locating items, sweeping or other cleaning, retrieving items from a loftier shelf, and retrieving photographs or cigarettes from other parts of the store). In fact, the plaintiff herself testified that many of the tasks she performed could non exist performed while seated. The court also plant it appropriate to consider the employer'southward "concern judgment" in attempting to discern the nature of an employee's piece of work. While the courtroom did not go and so far as to detect that CVS's business judgment was necessarily entitled to deference, the court did notice that the expectation that the majority of duties would be performed while standing was relevant to agreement the nature of a clerk/cashier'due south work. The undisputed facts confirmed that CVS expected its employees to identify a premium on customer service and in doing then trained its employees to be ready to perform any 1 of a multitude of job duties that required beingness on their feet. The plaintiff's own experience confirmed the standing requirement as she was instructed that she would be required to stand up while operating a greenbacks register during her job interview.

The court ultimately ended that if the majority of employees' assigned duties must be performed while standing, and the employer expects and trains employees to stand while performing their duties, the "nature of the work" requires standing. When practical to the plaintiff, the court concluded that CVS need not comply with subsection A as the nature of the work of a clerk/cashier at CVS does in fact require continuing.

While this decision is crusade for cautious optimism for employers facing seating lawsuits, employers should be mindful of the contempo decision in Garvey 5. Kmart Corp. past a federal approximate in California's Northern District, finding that disputed facts existed regarding the nature of the plaintiffs' work, precluding summary judgment.

Photo credit: tamergunal

Do You Have To Count Your Own Cash Register At Cvs When Leaving?,

Source: https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/clerkscashiers-need-not-be-provided-seats-while-operating-cash

Posted by: kelleyinack1988.blogspot.com

Share this post