75 Cal.App.5th 388
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Plaintiff Jill La Face, a longtime Ralphs cashier, brought a PAGA representative action alleging Ralphs violated IWC Wage Order 7-2000 §14(B) by failing to provide seating during "lulls in operation."
- Trial court converted a scheduled jury trial to a 12-day bench trial after concluding PAGA actions are equitable/administrative and not triable to a jury.
- Evidence at trial included testimony from ergonomics experts and numerous Ralphs employees about cashier duties: scanning, bagging, customer interaction, and other tasks during downtime ("fishing," cleaning, restocking, assisting departments).
- The trial court found Ralphs did not violate §14(B) because cashiers were expected to perform non-seated duties during lulls and sitting would interfere with those duties.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing (1) a constitutional right to a jury trial for PAGA claims and (2) that §14(B) required seating during cashier downtime; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PAGA actions carry a state constitutional right to a jury trial | La Face: PAGA actions are civil penalties / qui tam–style and historically triable by jury | Ralphs: PAGA is an administrative enforcement proxy for the state, includes equitable penalty reductions, and thus not a jury matter | No jury right; PAGA is an administrative/enforcement hybrid and equitable factors counsel against jury trial |
| Whether Ralphs violated IWC Wage Order §14(B) (seating during "lulls") | La Face: cashiers often had short, impracticable downtimes at registers that required seating | Ralphs: cashiers are expected to perform other standing duties during downtime; seating would interfere with those duties | No violation; evidence showed cashiers were expected to remain active, so §14(B) did not require seats |
| Whether employer business judgment can define duties for §14(B) analysis | La Face: employer cannot avoid seating requirement by simply asserting employees must always be busy | Ralphs: employer may define job duties; those duties are relevant to seating analysis | Employer expectations are one factor in an objective inquiry; reasonable employer-defined duties may defeat seating claims when supported by evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support judgment | La Face: evidence compelled finding of seating entitlement | Ralphs: testimony and records support trial court's factual findings | Appellant failed burden; evidence did not compel reversal and substantial evidence supports the finding against a §14(B) violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 73 (describing PAGA as primarily a public enforcement mechanism prosecuted by employees as the state’s proxies)
- Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (PAGA plaintiffs act as proxies for state and PAGA vindicates public enforcement interests)
- Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 63 Cal.4th 1 (guidance on application of IWC §14(A)/(B); courts look to actual or reasonably expected tasks)
- Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.5th 279 (UCL/FAL actions are equitable; discussion of jury-trial historical test)
- One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 283 (historical analysis of pre-1850 jury-trial rights for penalty actions)
- DiPirro v. Bondo Corporation, 153 Cal.App.4th 150 (Proposition 65 private enforcement—equitable factors in penalty assessment weigh against jury trial)
- McHugh v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 49 Cal.3d 348 (administrative adjudication by agency without jury does not violate constitutional principles)
- Franchise Tax Board v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 1006 (statutory innovations can create causes unknown at common law and affect jury rights)