Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Co.

LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Co.

Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four

February 18, 2022, Opinion Filed

B305494

Opinion

MICON, J.—Plaintiff Jill LaFace appeals from the judgment entered following a bench trial in her representative action against Ralphs Grocery Company under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of labor law workplace seating requirements. We reject her contention that she was entitled to a jury trial and affirm the trial court's finding that Ralphs was not required to provide seating for its cashiers.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY [*2] 3

CA(1)(1) The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) allows employees to bring a civil action for penalties against their employer on behalf of themselves and other current and former “aggrieved” employees for Labor Code-related violations.4 (§ 2699, subds. (a), (f).)

Appellant Jill LaFace worked as a cashier at a store owned by respondent Ralphs Grocery Company. She brought a PAGA action against Ralphs on behalf of herself and other current and former Ralphs cashiers, alleging that Ralphs violated an Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order that required employers to provide suitable seating when the nature of the work reasonably permitted the use of seats, or, for a job where standing was required, to provide seating for employee use when their use did not interfere with an employee's duties.5

The trial court set the matter for a jury trial but later granted Ralphs's motion for a bench trial after finding that PAGA actions were equitable in nature and were therefore not triable to a jury.6 A 12-day bench trial was held between November and December 2019, where ergonomics experts and Ralphs employees and supervisors testified for both sides. The trial court found that Ralphs had not violated the applicable wage order because the evidence showed [*3]  that even when lulls occurred in a cashier's primary duties, the cashiers were still required to move about the store fulfilling various other tasks.7

DISCUSSION

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 134 *; 2022 WL 498847

JILL LaFACE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.

Prior History:  [*1] APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC632679, Patricia Nieto, Judge.

Yannoulatos v. Superior Court, 2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7634, 2020 WL 6791534 (Cal. App. 2d Dist., Nov. 19, 2020)

Disposition: Affirmed.

CORE TERMS

cashiers, customers, seating, civil penalty, employees, equitable, right to a jury trial, common law, violations, cleaning, factors, fishing, lulls, job duties, contends, tasks, jury trial, triable, courts, busy, checking, parties, trial court, italics, sitting, aggrieved employee, wage order, checkstands, restocking, interfere

Business & Corporate Compliance, Wage & Hour Laws, Administrative Proceedings, Enforcement Provisions, Labor & Employment Law, Remedies, Private Suits, Civil Procedure, Jury Trials, Right to Jury Trial, Actions in Equity, Constitutional Law, Bill of Rights, Fundamental Rights, Trial by Jury in Civil Actions, Trials, Right to Jury Trial, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Scope & Definitions, Overtime & Work Periods, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Appellate Briefs, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Preservation for Review