Cvs Pharmacy Case 14 Section 14

The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the CVS Pharmacy, Inc. when an employee Nykea Kilby filed a lawsuit claiming that the Pharmacy should have provided here a seating arrangement during the discharge of her duties. The court ruled by declaring that the Sections 14(A) and 14(B) of the Wage Order No. 7-2001were mutually exclusive in nature. This resulted in the statement that the Pharmacy adequately shows that most of the tasks that the employee was required to perform were reasonable to be performed while stating. Kilby has appealed against this decision and we show you why.
Section 14(A) describes that all employees must be offered a seating arrangement if their job nature permits it. On the other hand, Section 14(B) describes that the employer must provide nearby seating for workers that have to stand due to the nature of work. They can use these seats when they are not engaged in active duty functions. …show more content…
First argument is that the law calls for a reasonable situation for the use of seats. It is difficult to define reasonability, when we only look at the situation from the employer’s perspective. The Pharmacy may believe that an employee working the cash register must stand up, while it is easily possible to do the same task sitting on a chair, without negatively affecting the customer experience.
CVS argued that they had already declared to Kilby at the time of initiating employment that the job required performing standing tasks. However, this goes against the wage order legislation, which has achieved its modern form after a century of fighting towards the improvement of working conditions and binding employers to consider the plight of their workers. We find that that Kilby is right in the argument that in this case, both 14(A) and 14(B) work in

Show More

Related Documents: Cvs Pharmacy Case 14 Section 14

Managing Information Technology (7th Edition) Essay