LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – A former AutoZone employee will get a second chance to hammer her ex-employer with her lawsuit brought under California’s Private Attorney General Act, as she claims she was never offered a seat while working at the register.
On July 19, California’s Second Appellate District overturned a summary judgment victory for AutoZoners obtained in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The ruling says there remain questions of whether a chair was ever offered to Monica Meda.
By bringing her claim under the PAGA, AutoZoners, which owned the AutoZone in question, is open to statutory penalties and liability for all California employees who allegedly should’ve been offered a chair at work. AutoZoners was formed in Nevada and has a principal address in Memphis, Tenn.
Meda worked for six months at the cashier and parts counter workstations, where she says her work could be completed while sitting.
AutoZoners said it complied with state labor laws by making two chairs available, though they were not located at Meda’s workstations. Instead, they were in or just outside the manager’s office.
Meda said she never saw anyone else use a chair at her workstations and was only offered a chair after an on-the-job foot injury. She used it for only two days, believing she could not use it if she was not injured.
The trial judge ruled for AutoZoners when it motioned for summary judgment. But the Second Appellate District says that was improper because it is not clear yet whether the two chairs outside the manager’s office constituted an offer for Meda to use one.
“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,” the ruling says.
“Accordingly, resolution of the issue at the summary judgment stage may be inappropriate, as it was here.”
The ruling says the fact no other employees used a chair could support a reasonable inference that AutoZoners prohibited or discouraged seated employees.