In Townley v. BJ’S Restaurants, Inc., the Court of Appeal confirmed that Labor Code §2802 does not require an employer to reimburse its employees for the cost of slip-resistant shoes as necessary expenditures incurred by the employees in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties.  There, the restaurant required employees to wear black, slip-resistant, close-toed shoes.  The policy did not require employees to purchase a specific brand, style, or design of shoes.  Nor did the policy prohibit employees from wearing their shoes outside of work.  Plaintiff filed a class action, arguing that if they were required to have these specific requirements, similar to uniforms, the company was required to pay for them, or reimburse the employees for the expenses. The trial court and the Court of Appeal disagreed with the plaintiff.  The Court noted that the cost of the shoes does not qualify as a “necessary expenditure” within the meaning of the statute. The Court basically found the shoes were basic, non-uniform items, and the law did not require an employer to pay for the generic shoes, simply because it wanted them to have some resistance.  It was akin to a company asking employees to wear white shirts, or blue pants etc., which does not legally obligate the company.

For more information, or if you need legal assistance, please contact the Wagner Legal Group, P.C. at (310) 857-5293 or fill out our contact form on the website.