Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating CA Wage & Hour Class and PAGA Actions (23rd Edition) 39 B. Reimbursement for Uniforms Under the Wage Orders Separate from Section 2802, several Wage Orders state that when uniforms, tools, or equipment are required by the employer, or necessary to perform the job duties, they must be provided by the employer.191 For example, employees may be required to wear a company’s logo shirt while on duty. The Wage Orders define “uniform” to include “apparel or accessories of distinctive design or color.”192 The IWC has explained, however, that the employer’s obligation to pay for uniforms does not require the employer to pay for an employee’s work clothes when the employee has only a broadly-defined dress code, such as a dark suit and a tie for lawyers.193 Due to the ambiguity in the meaning of “uniform,” class actions have been brought alleging that employers must purchase clothing that arguably constitutes de facto “uniforms.” In one case, the DLSE instituted an action (and obtained a sizeable settlement) based on allegations that a dress code consisting of a blue shirt and tan or khaki pants constituted a uniform.194 Also, some retailers have been sued for requiring sales associates to purchase and wear the employer’s clothing products.195 Certain Wage Orders provide that work uniforms must also be “maintained” by employers.196 In O’Connor v. Starbucks Corp.,197 the plaintiff brought a putative class action on behalf of Starbucks employees to recover the cost of cleaning aprons issued by the company. Starbucks provided that workers were responsible for maintaining and laundering their own aprons. The plaintiff had taken his apron to a laundry service where, pursuant to the recommendation of the owner, the apron had been dry cleaned in order to avoid bleeding of the color. The district court, relying on the IWC’s written statements interpreting the Wage Orders, found the relevant question to be whether the aprons required only “minimal care” or if they required “special laundering because of heavy soil or color.”198 If only minimal care of the aprons was necessary, Starbucks could legitimately have placed this obligation on its employees. 191 See, e.g., Wage Order 7-2001 § 9. 192 Id. at § 9(A). 193 See IWC Order No. 4-98 (stating that employers may “specify basic wardrobe items which are usual and generally usable in the occupation, such as white shirts, dark pants and black shoes and belts” and may require the employees to bear the expense of such items”); DLSE Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual (2002 Update) (“DLSE Manual”) § 45.5.2. (stating same); see also Townley v. B.J.’s Restaurants, Inc., 37 Cal. App. 5th 179, 185 (2019) (employees were not entitled to reimbursement where restaurant required them to wear ”slip resistant, black, close-toed shoes” for safety purposes). 194 Dep’t of Indus. Relations v. UI Video, 55 Cal. App. 4th 1084, 1088 (1997) (Blockbuster Video settled action brought by DLSE alleging that dress code requirements for its 1,914 employees violated Section 9(A) of Wage Order 7). 195 See, e.g., Morgan v. Wet Seal, Inc., 210 Cal. App. 4th 1341, 1356-1357 (2012). 196 See, e.g., IWC Wage Order 7-2001 § 9(A). 197 O'Connor v. Starbucks Corp., 2008 WL 2761586, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2008) (granting employer’s motion for summary judgment as to his uniform expense claim; “garments requiring only minimal care do not require the employer to bear the cost of their maintenance”); see also Madrigal v. Tommy Bahama Grp., Inc., 2011 WL 10511339, at *7 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2011) (“Defendant does not have corporate policies mandating the purchase of uniforms and the maintenance of the uniforms through dry cleaning,” “[d]efendant did not mandate dry cleaning of uniforms,” and the “majority of the clothes . . . were machine washable.”). 198 Id., at *6.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4