Last week, Starbucks employees from California, Colorado, and Illinois launched legal actions claiming their employer refused to reimburse them for required shoes and clothing under the Starbucks newly published dress code.    

Workers complain that despite being paid only minimum wage, the coffee giant is requiring them to use their personal money to purchase new attire to meet the new dress code standards.   The dress code, announced in April, requires employees to wear solid black tops or Company approved shirts; khaki, black, or blue denim bottoms; shoes in black, gray, navy blue, brown, tan, or white; and solid black, gray, navy, brown, tan, or white socks.  

Both federal and California law require that employers pay for the cost of employee uniforms, in addition to the cost of maintaining those uniforms if the maintenance exceeds normal washing and drying.   As expected, California has some of the most restrictive laws in the country requiring employers to reimburse employees for out-of-pocket expenses, generally.   See, Labor Code Section 2802.    

The California Government Code defines “uniforms” as outer garments required to be worn at work, which differ from the design or fashion of the general population     The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE or the Labor Commissioner) has promulgated a long-standing policy, providing guidance to employers on the definition of “uniform” for the above purpose.  It defines a  uniform to include apparel or accessories of distinctive design, logo, or color.  

However, of note, the California courts  have surprisingly been siding with employers on this issue in recent years.    In the case of Townley v BJ’s Restaurants (2019), the California court of appeals found that California law did not require the employer to reimburse its employees for the cost of slip-resistant shoes.   The court held that the shoes did not qualify as a “uniform,” as they were generally usable in the restaurant industry.   

The Townley Court relied in part on a previous unpublished  decision by the Ninth Circuit, Lemus v Denny’s.   The Lemus court found a nearly identical policy did not violate Labor Code section 2802, because employers were only required to pay for clothing that is considered a “uniform“ or otherwise qualifies as protective apparel.   The Ninth Circuit looked to the Labor Commissioner policy for guidance, citing that employers may specify basic wardrobe items, such as white shirts, and black shoes, which are generally usable in the occupation, without having to pay for or furnish such items.   

We regularly review uniform and dress code policies for our clients, and we will push back on policies that require clothing that falls outside the industry standard without reimbursement.    For example, mandating employees wear blue jeans or khakis may feel safe, but neither blue jeans nor khakis are industry standard for most industries.   Similarly, requiring black or white clothing of a particular style or brand may also start to look like a uniform.   The DLSE has opined that requiring “Hawaiian” style shirts constitutes a uniform, even though they may be worn by the general populace.  They are not “industry standard” for hospitality.

We will also question a uniform policy that requires employees to press, iron, or professionally launder their clothing.   Instead, dress code policies should focus on employees arriving in clean, wrinkle free attire.   

I have not drilled down into the specifics of the Starbucks policy, but if these cases proceed, the courts will.   It appears from my reading that Starbucks provided an option for employees to wear black or white attire.    Assuming that is true, I am puzzled how this policy violates California or federal law.   I suspect that Starbucks previously provided true uniforms at no cost, and this new policy was a reaction by employees to suddenly having to come out-of-pocket for work clothes.   

Unfortunately, Starbucks has given us bad case law before (thinking of the Troester decision that abolished the definition of de minimus time in California).  We will keep an eye on the progression of these cases, although that may well take years.  

In the meantime, from a political standpoint, optics are everything.   If you are changing a policy which now requires employees to incur more costs or take home less money, even if legal, those policies will come under scrutiny.    We always caution employers to step carefully with these kinds of revisions.   Often, changes are best tolerated when timed with a minimum wage increase or other policy changes, such as rolling out a new employee handbook.   

Speaking of, the Governor will start signing or vetoing all of the new legislative bills over the next few weeks, and we will have a better idea about what lies ahead for employers in 2026.   Stay tuned for all that excitement.