Skip to main content

Reimbursing Employees for Slip-Resistant Shoes



In a recent case, Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc., the California Court of Appeal held that the employer did not have to reimburse its employees for requiring them to buy and wear slip-resistant shoes.  To avoid slip-and-fall accidents, BJ’s adopted a safety policy that required employees to wear black, slip-resistant, closed-toed shoes.  The policy did not require employees to purchase a specific brand, style, or design of shoe.  The policy also did not prohibit employees from wearing their shoes outside of work.

Because the employees were not reimbursed for the cost of purchasing these shoes, a class action lawsuit was filed in 2014, seeking reimbursement for such costs under California Labor Code section 2802.

California Labor Code section 2802(a) provides that “An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer ….”

The trial court dismissed the case, finding that reimbursement was not required for the cost of non-specialty shoes that offer some slip-resistant characteristics, but which are otherwise ordinary clothing in nature.  In July 2019, the California Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court, holding that the slip-resistant shoes do not qualify as a “necessary expenditure” within the meaning of the California Labor Code section 2802.  The Court also pointed out that the plaintiff did not make any argument that the shoes were part of a “uniform”, or that they were not “usual and generally usable” in the restaurant occupation.  The implication being that if such arguments were raised, the outcome may have been different.

In making its decision, the Court cited to a 2015 decision by the Court of Appeals of the United States for the Ninth Circuit which found that Denny’s did not have to reimburse its employees for similar shoes under the California Labor Code section 2802.  The Ninth Circuit found that the shoes did not qualify as a “uniform,” but instead, “basic wardrobe items which are usual and generally usable in the occupation, such as white shirts, dark pants and black shoes and belts” which an employer is permitted to require its employees to furnish themselves.

Wage and hour laws are very technical.  Please contact LOEAB for guidance.  As experienced labor lawyers, we can help.

- Eric A. Boyajian, Esq., Law Offices of Eric A. Boyajian, APC.  www.loeab.com 

Popular posts from this blog

US Supreme Court: Employers Can Require Workers to Accept Individual Arbitration Agreements

Should employers be allowed to insist that disputes be handled in one-on-one arbitration, or should employees always be permitted to bring their claims in class or collective actions?  This issue was raised in the case titled Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (together with other cases which raised the same issue: Ernst & Young LLP et al. v. Morris et al., and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. et al.). The workers' argument was that such arbitration agreements violate employees' rights to act in concert and violates the NLRA  (National Labor Relations Act).  The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 today that companies may require workers to accept individual arbitration for wage and other workplace disputes rather than banding together in collective actions.  US Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch wrote that as a matter of policy these questions are surely debatable, but as a matter of law, the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce arbitration a...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sexual Harassment and the case of 100 hugs

Can 100 hugs from your supervisor over the course of 12 years amount to sexual harassment?  AN OVERVIEW OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT Sexual harassment can be verbal, physical or visual.   There are two types. (1) Quid pro quo, AKA, tit for tat, where decisions are conditioned on sexual favors. (2) Hostile Environment, where an offensive work environment is created by conduct such as staring at someone, making sexual comments and jokes, or physically touching or blocking a person in an intimidating manner.   A hostile work environment must be sufficiently extreme to change the terms and conditions of employment.  All verbal or physical harassment in the workplace is not actionable.  It must be severe or pervasive.  To be deemed pervasive, the incidents of misconduct must be sufficiently continuous and concerted.  A single incident may in some instances support a hostile environment claim depending upon its severity.  The required showing of sev...
Post a Comment
Read more

Joint Employers: The Employer and the Temp Agency

In Jimenez v. U.S. Continental Marketing, Inc ., plaintiff Elvia Jimenez was hired through a temp agency to work for a manufacturing company, U.S. Continental Marketing Inc. (USCM). Jimenez was ultimately fired by USCM, and she filed a wrongful termination case against USCM. At trial, the jury found in favor of the defendant soley because the jury believed that USCM was not Jimenez' employer. This decision was based on the defense argument that the temp agency had relatively more control over Jimenez than did USCM. The California Court of Appeal recently reversed the decision and the stage is set for a new trial. The Court of Appeal ruled that USCM was Jimenez' employer under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Jimenez was, in almost all respects, treated like an employee of the USCM, except that the USCM did not hire her, pay her, provide her benefits, or track her time. The temp agency did those things. But the Court of Appeal held that under F...
Post a Comment
Read more