Do Retail Employers Have to Provide Cashiers with a Seat? Not Always.

Court affirms Hobby Lobby’s right to design cashier stations for standing work under California’s suitable seating laws

California employers are familiar with the phrase “suitable seating,” thanks to the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders and cases like Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy. But applying those rules to real-world workplaces can still leave some gray areas.

A recent decision from the Court of Appeal, although unpublished, helps provide some clarity especially for retailers.

In Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the court affirmed a trial judge’s finding that Hobby Lobby did not violate the suitable seating requirement when it chose not to provide seats at its cashier workstations. The decision is a win for employers who design workspaces to meet operational needs and efficiency, and it gives helpful guidance for how courts evaluate seating claims.

What the law requires

Wage Order 7 (which applies to the retail industry) says: “All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.”

The California Supreme Court clarified in Kilby  that this analysis focuses on the actual tasks performed at a specific location, not just the job title. It’s also not about whether the work could be done seated — but whether it reasonably permits seating in context. Employers can take into account their business judgment, workplace layout, and customer service expectations.

Facts of the case

The plaintiff, Kelly Rose, worked as a cashier at a Hobby Lobby store. She brought a PAGA action, arguing that cashiers should have been given seats. The store used U-shaped “cashwrap” counters that were not built to include a chair or stool. Cashiers were expected to scan items, bag them, answer customer questions, and assist with other tasks — all of which required frequent movement and standing.

The trial court held a bench trial and ruled for Hobby Lobby. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the trial judge had properly applied the Kilby  standard. The court agreed that the physical layout, the design of the workstations, and the nature of cashier duties supported the decision not to provide seating.

Takeaways for employers

This case is a good reminder that employers can defend against suitable seating claims when they make thoughtful and well-documented decisions about workplace design and task performance. Here’s how to apply that in practice:

• Evaluate the specific tasks performed at each workstation, not just job titles. The key is the nature of the work in context.

• Document your rationale. If seating would interfere with job duties, customer service, or safety, make sure you have clear evidence — like workstation measurements, workflow descriptions, or ergonomic reports.

• Design matters. Courts will look at whether the workstation reasonably allows for a seat. If there is simply no room for one, and the work involves constant movement, you are on stronger legal ground.

• Review periodically. Employee tasks may shift over time. Reevaluate seating needs if your workflow, staffing, or layout changes.

  
  

Final thoughts

Employers do not have to offer a seat just because an employee asks. But you should be prepared to show that you considered it and that the nature of the work, reasonably understood, does not allow it. The Hobby Lobby case reinforces the importance of a reasoned, fact-specific approach — and that courts are willing to back employers when the facts are on their side.

About the Author: Michael H. Weiner, Esq. is a highly regarded San Diego attorney whose practice concentrates on general civil and business litigation, business planning, corporate formation, compliance and transactions, employment law, trademark and copyright, and franchising. With over a decade of experience, Michael has worked with diverse businesses, including nationwide franchisors, technology firms, and small local enterprises, helping them create, grow, manage, and protect their assets.

*This publication is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal or financial advice, nor do they necessarily reflect the views of Lido Law Group, APC, or any of its attorneys other than the author(s). This publication is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Lido Law Group, APC. Substantive changes in the law subsequent to the date of this publication might affect the analysis or commentary. Similarly, the analysis may differ depending on the jurisdiction or circumstances. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.