42 Litigating CA Wage & Hour Class and PAGA Actions (24th Edition) Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com 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.”205 If only minimal care of the aprons was necessary, Starbucks could legitimately have placed this obligation on its employees. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Starbucks, finding that there was no evidence that the aprons required special laundering. The court found that the opinion of the proprietor of the one laundry service to which the plaintiff had taken his apron was insufficient to establish his claim.206 205 Id., at *6. 206 Id, at *8.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4