California (July 16, 2019) – California Labor Code section 2802 requires an employer to reimburse employees "for all necessary expenditures" incurred by them as a direct result of the discharge of their job duties. The California Court of Appeal addressed what is meant by a "necessary expenditure" in Townley v. BJ's Restaurant, Inc., C086672 (July 8, 2019), ruling that employers do not have to reimburse employees for the cost of slip-resistant shoes, even though such shoes were required for safety purposes.

In Townley, the plaintiff, a former server at a restaurant operated by BJ's Restaurants, Inc. (BJ's), filed a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) alleging that by failing to reimburse its employees for the cost of slip-resistant shoes they were required to wear, BJ's violated section 2802 of the Labor Code. 

BJ's had adopted a safety policy that required all of its hourly restaurant employees to wear black, slip-resistant, close-toed shoes in order to help avoid slips and falls. Employees did not have to purchase a specific brand, style, or design of shoes, and were not prohibited from wearing these shoes outside of work. The Townley plaintiff had purchased a pair of canvas shoes in compliance with BJ's policy but, as was BJ's policy and practice, was not reimbursed for the cost of the shoes.

BJ's argued that the plaintiff's PAGA claim failed because under California law, employers are not required to pay or provide for non-uniform work clothing. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of BJ's.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the cost of the slip-resistant shoes does not qualify as a "necessary expenditure" because the plaintiff did not argue that the shoes she was required to purchase were part of a uniform or were not usual and generally usable in the restaurant occupation. The plaintiff also failed to cite to any authority holding that an employer is required to reimburse an employee for basic, non-uniform wardrobe items, such as the shoes at issue in this case. 

Although the Townley decision provides a win for employers under PAGA, it may be reviewed by the California Supreme Court. Accordingly, California employers should use caution when requiring employees to wear certain clothing items for which they will not be reimbursed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.