Britney Brown vs. Amazon.Com Services LLC

(8 Cal. Code Regs. § 11070(15) (“Wage Order”).)

In their post-trial brief, Plaintiffs essentially ask this Court to reconsider its April 12, 2024 ruling interpreting Sections 15(A) and 15(B) of the Wage Orders[2] and defining Plaintiffs’ burden. Plaintiffs contend that the Court adopted “Defendant’s incorrect, unsupported, and prejudicial interpretation of the wage order” and suggest that it is “reversible error” for the Court to apply that standard in Phase 1. (Plaintiffs’ Brief, p. 2:11-17.) Plaintiffs offer an extensive discussion of the Wage Orders, PAGA, and why it believes that the Wage Order requires employers to “provide workers with reasonably comfortable temperatures” and, more specifically, that “Amazon must provide reasonably comfortable temperatures for a normal building environment.” (Id., pp. 2:22-7:2 [quotes at p. 4:5 and 5:4-6].)

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs waived any challenge to the Court’s earlier order by failing to raise any challenge before their post-trial brief and repeatedly adopted the Court’s ruling throughout the litigation. (Defendant’s Reply, p. 15:17.)

Plaintiffs did not move for reconsideration, and Plaintiffs offer no new authority supporting their position. In any event, Plaintiffs’ interpretation of Section 15 remains unpersuasive and would require the Court to divorce the phrase “consistent with industry-wide standards for the nature of the process and the work performed” from the requirement that the “temperature maintained in each work area shall provide reasonable comfort.” (See Wage Order, § 15(A).)

As the Court previously explained:

Plaintiffs treat the “consistent with industry-wide standards” as an “exception” to the “reasonable comfort” standard; however, Plaintiffs offer no law to support this interpretation. (Plaintiffs’ Brief, p. 15:1-6.) Plaintiffs would effectively sever the “consistent with industry-wide standards” language and impose only a “reasonable comfort” standard. Such an interpretation is inconsistent with the general rules of statutory construction and the Court declines to adopt it here. The Wage Order is clear on its face and requires temperatures providing “reasonable comfort consistent with

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303135-CU-OE-GDS: Britney Brown vs. Amazon.Com Services LLC 06/15/2026 Court Trial (Day 05) in Department 8B

industry-wide standards for the nature of the process and work performed.” The term “reasonable comfort” is qualified by this additional language because, as the legislative history illustrates, context matters. The IWC recognized that what is a “reasonable” temperature in one industry setting may be different than what is reasonable in another.

The IWC even acknowledged that this qualification was “going to make, in some respects, make it more difficult for the staff and the agency to enforce this.” (Mrdjenovic Decl. Exh. E at p. 47.) However, this does not mean that the Court should disregard the “industry-wide standard” language altogether. Moreover, while the legislative history evidences that these concerns were raised by industries whose specific tasks resulted in high temperature work environments, it does not follow that employers are affirmatively obligated to make such a showing in the context of an alleged PAGA violation.

(4-12-24 Minute Order.)

Nor is it clear that this clause in Section 15(A) only applies where the work process generates excess heat or extreme temperatures. (See Plaintiffs’ Brief, pp. 4:5-5:17.) Instead, Section 15(B) appears best suited to address the situation Plaintiffs raise.

Plaintiffs accurately describe the history and purpose of the Wage Orders and PAGA. (See Plaintiffs’ Brief, pp. 2:24-3:23.) “Nearly a century ago, the Legislature responded to the problem of inadequate wages and poor working conditions by establishing the IWC and delegating to it the authority to investigate various industries and promulgate wage orders fixing for each industry minimum wages, maximum hours of work, and conditions of labor.” (Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1026.) “Pursuant to its ‘broad statutory authority’ [Citation], the IWC in 1916 began issuing industry- and occupation [] wide wage orders specifying minimum requirements with respect to wages, hours, and working conditions [citation].” (Ibid.) An IWC Wage Order is subject to the same rules of interpretation which govern statutes. (See Brinker, supra, 53 Cal. 4th at p. 1027.)

PAGA, in turn, was enacted in September 2003 to address underenforcement of the Labor Code by establishing new penalties and allowing aggrieved employees, acting as private attorneys general, to recover those penalties on behalf of themselves and others

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303135-CU-OE-GDS: Britney Brown vs. Amazon.Com Services LLC 06/15/2026 Court Trial (Day 05) in Department 8B

similarly situated. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 379-380; Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1113.)

The Wage Orders long predate PAGA and were not crafted with representative actions of this scope in mind. The standard they impose for thermal comfort is inherently context-specific, turning on reasonableness as informed by industry-wide conditions and the nature of the work performed. While Plaintiffs attempt to adapt that standard into a uniform rule capable of managing a large-scale PAGA claim, the Court must apply the Wage Order as written and cannot reshape its requirements to fit the procedural vehicle Plaintiffs have chosen.

But, contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestion, the Court’s articulation of the standard does not eviscerate PAGA. The Court’s approach considers the Wage Order’s plain language as a whole, while also considering its legislative history and structure. Nor does the fact that this is a PAGA action permit the Court to disregard or reallocate meaning among the Wage Order’s provisions in a manner inconsistent with established principles of interpretation.

Finally, the Court continues to find that this interpretation is consistent with the limited persuasive authority identified by the Parties. (See Fobroy v. Video Only, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2014) 2014 WL 6306708, at p. *16 [motion for summary judgment granted as to the plaintiff’s warehouse temperature claim where plaintiff did not attempt to quantify the temperature or otherwise introduce evidence of applicable industry-wide standards]; Jeske v. Maxim Healthcare Servs., Inc. (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2012) 2012 WL 78242, at pp. *16-17 [claim dismissed with leave to amend because the complaint lacked facts to demonstrate inadequate working temperatures or explain how defendant – as supplier of nursing assistants – had ability to control or address the temperature; defendant also raised that complaint failed to explain industry standards].)

The Court remains persuaded that “Plaintiffs have the initial burden to define the ‘industry-wide standards for the nature of the process and work performed’ to which they are holding Defendant accountable. They cannot articulate what temperature provides ‘reasonable comfort’ without also offering proof as to what the industry-wide standard requires.” (4-12-24 Minute Order.) The Court now turns to Plaintiffs’ articulation of the standard.

2. Plaintiffs Failed to Meet Their Burden

Plaintiffs contend that “the reasonably comfortable temperature consistent with industry standards for the work process involved at Amazon’s fulfillment network is between 68F – 75.5F.” (Plaintiffs’ Brief, p. 7; Trial Transcript, p. 452:8-13 [Mr. Harvey testimony].) In their opening brief, and at trial, Plaintiffs made their position clear: the American Society

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303135-CU-OE-GDS: Britney Brown vs. Amazon.Com Services LLC 06/15/2026 Court Trial (Day 05) in Department 8B

of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers (“ASHRAE”) Standard-55 (“ASHRAE 55”) is the industry-wide standard for comfort cooling. (Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief, pp. 4:13-5:24; Trial Transcript, p. 843:14-15 [“we have the standard here which is ASHRAE ”].) In their closing brief, Plaintiffs take a different approach, arguing that “Plaintiffs have proven the existence and application of at least 5 industry-wide standards for thermal comfort within Amazon’s fulfillment network: OSHA, ASHRAE, ISO, Cal/OSHA, and the TLV.” (Plaintiffs’ Brief, p. 11:3-5.)

The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs’ characterization. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that OSHA, ISO, Cal/OSHA, and the TLV are applicable industry-wide standards. OSHA is a recommendation that employers maintain indoor temperatures between 68F to 76F. (Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief, p. 7, fn 4; Plaintiffs’ Brief, p. 11:5-8; Exh. 30-4.) There is no evidence that this recommendation reflects an applicable industry-wide standard where penalties strictly attach for any variance outside that range.

Instead of identifying a range for thermal comfort, Cal/OSHA and TLV identify temperatures at which heat stress is introduced. (Trial Transcript, pp. 162:22-163:5; 165:13-166:9; 678:10-679-14; 683:18-685:8; 687:24-689:10.) While these values are helpful, they also do not establish an industry-wide standard. For example, the Cal/OSHA regulation requires the employer to take additional mitigation efforts to address the temperature. (Id., pp. 162:22-163:5; 223:25-224:7; 687:24-689:10.) Finally, the evidence regarding ISO is extremely limited.

ISO 7730 is an international standard that was referenced in certain white papers. (Id., pp. 261:11-20; 453:11-14, 553:20-23, 555:3-6.) However, ISO 7730 was not introduced and Plaintiffs’ expert was clear that he based his opinion on ASHRAE 55. (Id., p. 565:18-22.) Accordingly, the Court focuses its analysis on ASHRAE 55.

ASHRAE 55

At the risk of oversimplification, Plaintiffs’ position can be summarized as follows: Amazon identified the standard as ASHRAE 55; Amazon applied the standard when engaging in its Comfort Cooling Re-Design; and, therefore, the applicable standard is ASHRAE 55. (See id., p. 843:14-16.) The Court appreciates the appeal of this approach. But it misses the critical context of ASHRAE 55 and how Amazon actually used it.

As established through the testimony of TJ Walker, Amazon’s Senior Design Manager, Amazon shifted from designing for employee safety to employee comfort. (See Trial Transcript, pp. 219:11-223:8.) In April 2021, Amazon issued the “Worldwide HVAC Comfort Cooling Re-Design” white paper which concluded that in “NA [North America] the industry accepted comfort cooling design temperature per ASHRAE is 75.5F...” (Id., pp. 239:13-240:10; Exh. 12-1 [emphasis added].) ASHRAE 55 was referenced throughout other Amazon documents.[3] (See, e.g., Exhs. 12, 29, 32, 37, 40.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303135-CU-OE-GDS: Britney Brown vs. Amazon.Com Services LLC 06/15/2026 Court Trial (Day 05) in Department 8B

However, the Court is not persuaded that these references constitute an admission by Amazon that ASHRAE 55 dictates the temperature that must be maintained in each work area to provide “reasonable comfort consistent with industry-wide standards for the nature of the process and the work performed.”

ASHRAE 55 is a standard that HVAC professionals use when designing HVAC systems. (See Trial Transcript, pp. 209:8-24; 225:14-16; 380:14-17; 417:5-419:1; 471:1- 14; Exhs. 1 and 2.) It is used to predict the percentage of occupants likely to find a given indoor environment thermally acceptable under specified assumptions regarding air temperature, radiant temperature, humidity, air velocity, metabolic rate, and clothing insulation. (Trial Transcript, pp. 418:11-419:1; 427:15-432:5, 443:16-445:13; 449:9-19; 450:10-15.) The Center for the Built Environment at the University of California, Berkeley (“CBE”) developed a tool that applies these inputs to calculate predicted comfort outcomes under the ASHRAE 55 framework. (Id., at pp. 426:7-427:11.)

However, the model necessarily simplifies a dynamic workplace into a static snapshot of assumed environmental and occupant conditions. Its predictions depend on specified inputs, each of which may vary across time, work areas, and occupants. (See Trial Transcript, pp. 491:13-492:23 [regarding clothing insulation]; 492:24-494:9 [metabolic rate, physical activity]; 692:15-701:13 [metabolic rate, air speed, clothing factors].) Regarding metabolic rate, as ASHRAE 55 itself provides, the standard is primarily intended for sedentary or near sedentary physical activity levels. (Id., pp. 473:12- 474:23; 640:14-21; 693:11-694:9; Exh. 1-44.)

Moreover, “thermal comfort is a perception of a comfort as it relates to the environmental condition of temperature.” (Trial Transcript, p. 629:12-14.) ASHRAE 55 evaluates thermal comfort as a probabilistic estimate of occupant satisfaction under defined environmental assumptions rather than as a fixed workplace requirement. In practice, it identifies a range of conditions expected to produce an “acceptable level of satisfaction” for approximately 80-90% of occupants. (Id., pp. 421:3-22, 425:20-426:5.)

Fundamentally, ASHRAE 55 is a predictive model of thermal comfort based on assumed inputs. It serves as an engineering tool used by HVAC designers to identify design conditions around which heating and cooling systems are sized, calibrated, and operated.[4] As Amazon explained, “From a design perspective, the engineers of record utilize ASHRAE climatic data and local codes and standards in addition to the building thermal characteristics, internal sensible latent heat load, and ventilation requirements to properly size the [HVAC] equipment to adequately heat and cool the space.” (Trial Transcript, p. 212:18-23.)

Through the Comfort Cooling Re-Design, Amazon used ASHRAE 55 to “back into” a comfort cooling set-point of 75.5, characterized as the “top end” of a range generated by the model based on variables like metabolic rate, clothing level, air speed, and humidity. (Id., pp. 225:11-226:24; 261:21-262:2, 318:22-319:6.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303135-CU-OE-GDS: Britney Brown vs. Amazon.Com Services LLC 06/15/2026 Court Trial (Day 05) in Department 8B

Plaintiffs’ argument improperly treats a modeling output used for HVAC design as though it establishes a legal threshold under the Wage Order. The Wage Order asks whether the temperature maintained in a work area provides reasonable comfort in light of industry-wide standards and the nature of the work being performed in that workplace. ASHRAE 55, by contrast, estimates the likelihood that occupants will find a given thermal environment acceptable under a defined set of assumed conditions. The former inquiry is workplace-specific and grounded in actual working conditions; the latter is a generalized predictive model built on simplified assumptions used for building design.

That distinction matters. A temperature selected during HVAC design pursuant to ASHRAE 55 does not establish the temperature required by the Wage Order. Nor does the selection of a 75.5°F design set point constitute an admission that temperatures above that value necessarily fail to provide reasonable comfort under industry-wide standards. The evidence instead shows that Defendant used ASHRAE 55 as an engineering methodology for system design and calibration – not as a legal definition of workplace comfort.

To conclude otherwise would improperly convert a design assumption into a legal standard.

Industry, Process, and Work Performed

The Court heard extensive testimony regarding the “nature of the process and work performed.” This action focuses on Amazon’s fulfillment network, which generally involves the work processes of receiving, sorting, stowing, picking, packing, and shipping. (See generally, Hovde testimony.) Ms. Hovde described both the fulfillment network, as well as the physical work processes of employees within it (including, for example, walking, pushing, pulling, lifting, etc.) While there was some variation between the different types of facilities within the fulfillment network, such as the types of equipment used and the size/weight of the goods, the processes were largely the same.

And it is true that Amazon developed nation-wide designs for comfort cooling, notwithstanding the differences between the sites within the fulfillment network and/or the work processes. (Trial Transcript, pp. 216:6-19; 223:14-19.)

Initially, Plaintiffs defined the relevant industry as any business that works in “customer order fulfillment, getting product from point of sale directly to the consumer.” (Trial Transcript, p. 7:15-25.) However, by the end, Plaintiffs had narrowed the relevant industry to only “fulfillment centers, fulfillment networks in the e-commerce industry” that are “sealed off [and] mechanically conditioned.” (Id., pp. 775:1-776:11.) Plaintiffs seem to suggest that because Amazon chose to seal its fulfillment network sites, it was

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303135-CU-OE-GDS: Britney Brown vs. Amazon.Com Services LLC 06/15/2026 Court Trial (Day 05) in Department 8B

required to use air conditioning to achieve a particular temperature range. (Id., at pp. 361:21-362:24.)

Plaintiffs’ approach essentially creates an industry of one – Amazon – with the “industry wide standard for the nature of the process and work performed” defined based on Amazon’s aspirational design goals as the industry leader. That cannot be the intention of the Wage Order. As our Supreme Court has explained: “A wage order’s industry-wide minimum requirements are intended to create a level playing field among competing businesses in the same industry in order to prevent the type of ‘race to the bottom’ that occurs when businesses implement new structures or policies that result in substandard wages and unhealthy conditions for workers.” (Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, 960 [considering worker classification issues].)

To the extent Plaintiffs assert that they “established” that other “industry leaders including Target, Walmart, and Costco utilize air conditioning in their supply chain facilities,” the Court is not persuaded. First, there is no basis to limit the industry to these four largest retailers. Even if they do constitute their own industry, Plaintiffs only offered limited, unsubstantiated testimony about how these other employers operate their warehouses. (Trial Transcript, pp. 231:11-232:9; 332:19-333:3; 360:6-361:2; 500:20-501:25; 732:8-733:19.)

Critically, none of that testimony addressed ASHRAE 55. Instead, the evidence presented demonstrates that many other warehouses do not include air conditioning and instead rely on other engineering and environmental controls like fans, as well as mitigation measures like personal cooling equipment to deal with high temperatures and provide thermal comfort. (See Id., pp. 507:18-508:12; 617:5-10; 623:25-624:23; 625:6-16; 629:14-630:21; 631:2-634:10; 675:11-676:6; 676:18-677:12.) As Amazon’s expert, Dr.

Brown, put it: the industry standard for managing thermal comfort in the warehouse industry is “engineering controls. So managing air speed, air velocity, cooling fans in that way, exhaust fans. It’s administrative procedures that will also increase thermal comfort. So frequent breaks, managing workloads, opening – opening doors in the evenings and closing them during the day, for example, rest – shaded resting areas. And then there’s clothing choices. So having freedom to choose your own clothing would be the industry standards.” (Id., pp. 707:19-708:5.)

Plaintiffs’ theory (and ASHRAE 55) does not account for these additional measures that contribute to the subjective sense of comfortable temperatures, notwithstanding what the thermostat says.

The Court agrees that Plaintiffs’ proposed standard creates a risk of disincentivizing other employers in the warehousing and fulfillment industry from considering and/or installing air conditioning in the future.

***

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303135-CU-OE-GDS: Britney Brown vs. Amazon.Com Services LLC 06/15/2026 Court Trial (Day 05) in Department 8B

Based on ASHRAE 55, Plaintiffs ask this Court to adopt a specific temperature range – 68F to 75.5F – applicable to Amazon’s fulfillment network where violations will turn on an empirical review of temperature data. (Trial Transcript, pp. 656:1-15; 825:23-826:21.) In so doing, Plaintiffs seek to impose a uniform standard not contemplated by the Wage Order. As the Court previously explained, the legislative history demonstrates that the “IWC replaced specific temperature ranges with a compromise position that accounts for the variations across industries. (See Defendant’s Brief, pp. 2:18-3:26; Mrdjenovic Decl., Exhs. A at p. 9, B at p. RM - 178, C at p. 792.2, D at p. 36, E at p. 67, F at p. 123, G at p. 16.)” (4-12-24 Minute Order.)

Plaintiffs repeatedly emphasize that this range is consistent with Amazon’s internal due diligence and data-driven approach in its comfort cooling re-design, and the actual temperature data showing that operators were “overwhelmingly setting their setpoints between 70-75F over a 5 year period.” (See Plaintiffs’ Brief, p. 15:18-28.) There is nothing in the record to suggest that Amazon developed its comfort cooling redesign with the understanding that it would form the basis for a kind of strict liability application of the Wage Order where an associate could seek a penalty anytime the thermostat reflected a temperature over 75.5F. Simply put, Amazon’s use of a data-driven approach to develop an aspirational goal – even one its associates were already implementing – does not transform that goal into an industry-wide standard.

To be clear, the Court is not finding that no industry-wide standard exists or that the Wage Order is unenforceable. Based on the trial evidence, the Court can readily envision how such a standard might be articulated. But it is not the Court’s role to fashion a standard where Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to establish one. If greater clarity or uniformity is warranted, it is for the Legislature to provide it, or for Cal/OSHA to adopt more specific rules or guidance, such as defining appropriate temperature ranges for this industry.[5]

Nor should the Court’s conclusion be understood as minimizing the importance of workplace protections or the need for employers to provide working conditions that comply with applicable legal requirements. The Court’s holding is confined to the evidentiary record before it and the theory advanced by Plaintiffs; it does not reflect any view that employee comfort, safety, or employer accountability are matters of lesser significance.

The difficulty here is that Plaintiffs recast a flexible, context-dependent standard – one grounded in “reasonable comfort” as measured by industry norms, the nature of the process, and the work performed – into something far more precise to facilitate their pursuit of PAGA relief on a broad, representative basis. That effort, while understandable, highlights the tension between a standard designed to operate caseby-case and the demands of aggregate enforcement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303135-CU-OE-GDS: Britney Brown vs. Amazon.Com Services LLC 06/15/2026 Court Trial (Day 05) in Department 8B

Disposition

For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden. As such, judgment must be entered in favor of Defendant.

Having so concluded, the Court declines to reach the Parties’ remaining arguments.

Defendant shall prepare a judgment for the Court’s signature.

[1] The Court initially set the hearing for March 13, 2026. However, the hearing was continued to

April 3, 2026, then to April 27, 2026, and then to June 15, 2026. [2] In the April 12, 2024 ruling, the Court took no position on which Wage Order applies to

Defendant. (4-12-24 Minute Order.) In the post-trial briefing, Plaintiffs maintain that Wage Order 7, applying to the “Mercantile Industry” applies and asserts that “Amazon incorrectly contends that its fulfillment network is part of the warehousing industry and therefore falls under IWC Wage Order 9.” (Plaintiffs’ Brief, p. 8:2-15.) Defendant exclusively cites Wage Order 7 in its post-trial brief and disputes Plaintiffs’ characterization on reply. (See Defendant’s Brief, pp. 8, 17, 20, 22, 25; Defendant’s Reply, p. 1, fn 1.) Accordingly, there is no dispute that Wage Order 7 applies to the instant action and the Court’s discussion here is limited to Wage Order 7. [3] Throughout the trial, Amazon argued that its use of ASHRAE 55 in its comfort cooling

redesign was incorrect. That seems to go too far, but whether Amazon correctly used the standard and any related tools is not material to the Court’s decision. [4] Plaintiffs’ expert, Rod Harvey, used the CBE thermal comfort tool to develop an opinion

regarding a temperature range that provides “reasonable comfort.” In doing so, he applied multiple inputs to the model and generated several potential ranges before ultimately settling on a range of 68F to 75.5F, but he testified that he had no independent method for verifying or validating the outputs generated by the tool beyond reliance on the tool itself. (Trial Transcript, pp. 491:13-497:17; 509:6-510:6; 519:16-535:4; 545:17-546:9.) The evidence at trial further indicated that neither the CBE tool nor the underlying ASHRAE 55 model is static over time.

There was no evidence establishing whether the tool is peer-reviewed, how frequently it is updated, or whether a user can determine which version of the tool – or which version of ASHRAE 55 and its addenda – was applied at a given time. (See Id., pp. 538:20-22 [Mr. Harvey “can’t say for certain” if the CBE tool is peer reviewed]; 512:20-24 [Mr. Harvey suggested that “they update the tool quickly upon any new issues of the ASHRAE standard or any binding agenda,” but Plaintiffs put forth no evidence in support]; 542:5-12 [as Plaintiffs’ counsel himself noted, “People update their websites all the time,” such that there is “no way” for anyone to know “if [the tool] is the same tool” they previously used].)

This raises a concern regarding reproducibility and the ability to verify the basis for Plaintiffs’ proposed comfort range. [5] Cal/OSHA provided additional guidance during the pendency of this action by enacting

Section 3396 “Heat Illness Prevention in Indoor Places of Employment.” (8 Cal. Code Regs., §

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303135-CU-OE-GDS: Britney Brown vs. Amazon.Com Services LLC 06/15/2026 Court Trial (Day 05) in Department 8B

3396.) The regulation requires employers take certain mitigating actions when temperatures reach 82F and 87F, but does not impose or even recommend an indoor temperature range.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8B at (916) 874- 5762 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore.

If you are not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, a Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge. The signed form must be filed with the clerk prior to the hearing.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211). The form must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the hearing is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

If oral argument is requested, the Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

Counsel for Defendant is directed to notice all parties of this order.

Please note that the Complex Civil Case Department now provides information to assist you in managing your complex case on the Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/divisions/civil/complex-civil-cases. The Court strongly encourages parties to review this website regularly to stay abreast of the most recent complex civil case procedures. Please refer to the website before directly contacting the Court Clerk for information.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303135-CU-OE-GDS: Britney Brown vs. Amazon.Com Services LLC 06/15/2026 Court Trial (Day 05) in Department 8B