Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions

Due to the ambiguity in the meaning of “uniform,” class actions have been brought alleging
that employers must purchase clothing that arguably constitutes de facto “uniforms.” In one
case, the DLSE instituted an action (and obtained a sizeable settlement) based on
allegations that a dress code consisting of a blue shirt and tan or khaki pants constituted a
uniform. 101 Also, some retailers have been sued for requiring sales associates to purchase
and wear the employer’s clothing products. 102
Certain Wage Orders provide that work uniforms must also be “maintained” by
employers. 103 In O’Connor v. Starbucks Corp., 104 the plaintiff brought a putative class action
on behalf of Starbucks employees to recover the cost of cleaning aprons issued by the
company. Starbucks’ provided that workers were responsible for maintaining and
laundering their own aprons. The plaintiff had taken his apron to a laundry service where,
pursuant to the recommendation of the owner, the apron had been dry cleaned in order to
avoid bleeding of the color. The district court, relying on the IWC’s written statements
interpreting the Wage Orders, found the relevant question to be whether the aprons
required only “minimal care” or if they required “special laundering because of heavy soil or
color.” If only minimal care of the aprons was necessary, Starbucks could legitimately have
placed this obligation on its employees. The district court granted summary judgment in
favor of Starbucks, finding that there was no evidence that the aprons required special
laundering. The court found that the opinion of the proprietor of the one laundry service to
which the plaintiff had taken his apron was insufficient to establish his claim.
V. Meal and Rest Period Claims
A. Nature of Claims
Since January 1, 2001, the Labor Code has imposed on employers a duty to pay
employees one additional hour of pay for each daily violation of the meal and rest period
requirements of the Wage Orders. The enactment of this rule triggered a massive wave of
class actions against hundreds of employers in California. Most notably, in December 2005
101
102
103
104
require the employees to bear the expense of such items”); DLSE Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual
(2002 Update) (“DLSE Manual”) § 45.5.2. (stating same).
Dep’t of Indus. Relations v. UI Video, 55 Cal. App. 4th 1084, 1088 (1997) (Blockbuster Video settled action brought by
DLSE alleging that dress code requirements for its 1,914 employees violated Section 9(A) of Wage Order 7).
Such a policy might also violate Labor Code Section 450, which precludes an employer from forcing an employee to
patronize the employer or to purchase a thing of value from a particular vendor.
See, e.g., IWC Wage Order 7-2001 § 9(A).
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53877 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 14, 2008)
Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating California Wage & Hour Class Actions (12th Edition) 29