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

California's Dynamex Case: The ABC Test Simplifies The Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court published a ground-breaking decision in the case of Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, Cal. Supreme Ct. no. S222732 , 2018 WL 1999120.  The 85-page opinion is about when a worker may be classified as an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee, under California's Wage Order.   Wage Order 9 was at issue in this case.    Dynamex is a nationwide courier whose drivers were once classified as employees by the company, but were later reclassified as independent contractors in 2004. Such reclassification is often executed by companies in order to generate economic savings at the expense of its employees. For example, in Dynamex , the drivers were required to provide their own vehicles and pay all transportation expenses, maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc. The gist of the decision is this:  If the employer cannot satisfy the ABC test, then the worker is an employee...
Post a Comment
Read more