California Courts of Appeal
A Restaurant Need Not Reimburse Employees for Non-Uniform Safety Shoes that Are Generally Usable in the Restaurant Industry.TOWNLEY v. BJ’S RESTAURANTS, INC.
TOWNLEY SUED BJ’S FOR FAILING TO REIMBURSE HER FOR REQUIRED NON-SLIP SHOES
Plaintiff Krista Townley worked as a server for Defendant BJ’s Restaurants. BJ’s had a safety policy that required all hourly employees to wear black, slip-resistant, close-toed shoes. No specific brand, style, or shoe design was required. Townley purchased a pair of shoes to comply with BJ’s policy and was not reimbursed for the cost of the shoes. BJ’s had a policy of not reimbursing employees for compliant shoes. Townley filed a PAGA lawsuit for failure to reimburse employees for required shoes. The trial court granted BJ’s motion for summary judgment. Townley appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
BJ’S WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REIMBURSE TOWNLEY FOR SHOES
Labor Code §2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for various work-related expenses, including for uniforms and protective apparel required by OSHA. The Court of Appeal held that Townley’s shoes were not part of a uniform and were generally usable in the restaurant occupation. Therefore, BJ’s was not required to reimburse Townley and other employees for the shoes.
COA 3rd Dist. Filed 6/4/19, publication ordered 7/8/19. 37 Cal.App.5th 179. Opinion by Acting Presiding Justice Butz.
