For Abercrombie & Fitch, 2003 was not a great year.  The international retail giant had some very definite ideas about how their California employees should look—and dress—and some very definite penalties for employees who didn’t toe the line.

Female employees were permitted to have no more than two earrings per ear—male employees weren’t allowed to have any.  Hair was another Abercrombie obsession—no “unnatural” hair colors or highlights allowed.  They even checked out their employees’ nail polish—those colors also had to be “natural.”  Clothes, per company policy, needed to be “clean and classic”—oh, one other thing—they had to be Abercrombie clothes.

That in itself wouldn’t have caused such a riff if the company hadn’t required their employees to pay for those clothes themselves—not once, but continually:  every time a new sales guide was published, employees were required to buy new clothes consistent with the new look.  Any employee who didn’t comply would be sent home and scheduled for less shifts—not a great deal for the employees, but nice for Abercrombie, as long as they could get away with it.

Abercrombie Pays the Piper

They couldn’t—their requirements were a violation of California labor law, section 2802.  That law is clear and unambiguous, and appears—in black and white—on the state’s website:

“An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.”

Translation:  if an employer in California makes his employees wear a uniform, the employer has to pay for it.  Abercrombie didn’t pay for the uniforms—so the state made them pay $2.2 million in reimbursements, and promise to make their uniform policy voluntary.

Déjà Vu All Over Again

Promises made by corporate behemoths are like snowflakes in April—they don’t last very long.  Even though they got caught, even though they were forced to pay more than $2 million to injured employees, and even though they promised never to do it again, they did.  In 2015, more than 62,000 Abercrombie employees sued the company over its strict uniform policy—the same policy they had promised to change more than a decade earlier.

According to Reed Marcy, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, Abercrombie treated its employees wrongfully in two ways.  First, it orchestrated a program of “compelled purchases,” in which workers who refused to buy the company’s clothes suffered penalties, a violation of California labor codes.  Second, Abercrombie failed to reimburse employees for those purchases, which constitutes a separate state labor code violation.

Can Employers in California Require That Employees Wear Uniforms?

Employers in California can require their employees to dress in a particular way, or to wear a uniform, but those requirements can’t run afoul of the state’s laws prohibiting discrimination.  For example, employers can’t establish a uniform policy which requires women to wear dresses or skirts, or which requires disabled employees to wear uniforms which are difficult for them to put on or take off–and they can’t require employees to pay for the uniforms.

It’s More Than Just Uniforms

Under California labor law, the only items employers can require employees to pay are those required by state and federal law (such as income taxes); those authorized by the employee to cover insurance, hospital or medical dues; and those authorized by collective bargaining to cover either health and welfare or pension payments.  What they can’t require them to pay is the cost for uniforms or any of the following:

Conclusion

Some aspects of California labor law can be difficult for laypersons to navigate.  If you feel your rights are being violated in the workplace, you need to contact an experienced employment attorney.
The attorneys at Aiman-Smith & Marcy have broad and deep expertise in both federal and California employment law and an unwavering commitment to helping victims of unjust labor practices.  We will take your case seriously, work collaboratively with you, and devote the time and resources necessary to ensure your rights are protected.  If you have specific questions or would like to discuss your case, contact us today.

11 Responses

  1. If employer "doctors office" requires uniforms "logo printed scrubs and particular color and brand", how many sets of uniforms are they suppose to provide

    1. Hi Johnanna, Thanks for your comment. It really depends on so many different things. Like, how often to you need to change? Do they pay for cleaning? etc...It would be best if you gave us a call so we can give you better advice based on what you are exactly going through. 510-817-2711 Thanks!

    1. Hi Rogger, Thank you for your question. This is a very good question and it would be best if you spoke directly to our attorneys for further assistance. Please call us at 510-817-2711 whenever you get a chance.

  2. I wanted to know.. I work for rite aid and our dress code is very specific. We need to wear collard navy blue shirts and khaki pants. I wanted to know if my company is required by law to provide those clothes to us? They are very stricked up into what color my shoes are but nowhere in the dress code policy does it specify what color is needed to be worn. Thank u for your help.

  3. I worked for Hollister for a little while (also owned by Abercrombie) and was involved in the 2015 class action suit against them. After years I got an $8 check for those clothes which cost about $40. Hopefully in the future the company gets fined a larger amount.

  4. I worked for a company in California that required us to wear uniforms. We worked 12 hour shifts and were also required to relieve the shift that was on duty. Every company that I have worked for paid me 15 minutes of double time for changing and pass down. The company also paid us at a rate of 10 straight time hours and 2 time and a half hours without any real explanation. It is my understanding that this is also a violation of labor law. I discussed the unpaid time for relief and changing into our uniforms with management but it always fell on deaf ears. I'm not sure if I'm still able to be compensated for these unpaid hours. I no longer work there and I did leave on good terms.

Leave a Reply

Lisseth Bayona

Attorney

Education and Background

I am a Los Angeles native and daughter of Salvadorian immigrants. From an early age, my parents instilled the value of hard work and education in me and my two siblings. Their perseverance enabled each of us to graduate from college and earn professional degrees.

My interest and commitment to workers’ rights have roots in my parents’ experiences as undocumented workers in Los Angeles. Witnessing the challenges they faced inspired me to pursue a career where I can help individuals confronted with similar struggles. To help someone in those moments is very satisfying. I love connecting with people and learning about their stories. I believe that dignity in the workplace is a right of all workers, not a convenience or privilege reserved for employees of a certain race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Legal Experience

I received my J.D. from the University of Southern California (USC) Gould School of Law. While there, I served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Patrick J. Walsh of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where I drafted a criminal judicial opinion. Also, while at Gould, I served as an extern for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. As a Criminal Division Extern, I had the opportunity to work closely with a trial team of Assistant U.S. Attorneys on a money laundering case which further sparked my interest in litigation.

Personal Interests

In my free time, I enjoy urban vegetable gardening, traveling, and spending time with my nephew and niece. I also love to spend time at San Onofre Beach learning to surf, although admittedly, I am not very good.

Education

 

Hallie L. Von Rock

Attorney (SBN 233152)

Education and Background

I moved to the Bay Area from Washington after graduating high school. I had been accepted to UC Berkeley through a program where I could defer for two years while getting my California residency and attending community college, which was significant since I was paying for college on my own. I began working for Randall Aiman-Smith and Reed Marcy in 1996 as an office manager while taking night classes. My first foray into the legal world was soon after starting at the firm when I was ready to transfer to UC Berkeley. Rather than accepting my resident status, the Board of Regents took the position that California residency required a student to be in California “two calendar years.” Randall and Reed took up my case with the same verve as they helped their actual clients and I got the chance to comb through the UC Berkeley library to read their codes and regulations to support my position. In that experience, I learned what is was like to feel helpless against a big organization and then to have dedicated attorneys in my corner to take up my cause.

After a break to pursue my major in art history, I went to UC Hastings College of Law and continued working with Randall and Reed. Having worked together now for over 25 years, we have a unique ability to work collaboratively and finish each other’s sentences. I have strived throughout my career to make a difference in the lives of our clients. At the end of the day, if I am helping someone to get compensation for losses they suffered, then I know that all the work put into a case has been worth it.

Legal Experience

I have extensive experience in civil litigation and class action cases, including conducting discovery and depositions, calculating damages analysis, preparing motions for certification, writing appellate documents, and overseeing claims administration. We have handled several class actions against retailers where plaintiffs claimed they were forced to purchase clothing to wear to work and were not compensated for these purchases, including against Abercrombie & Fitch, Hugo Boss, Armani Exchange, Uniqlo, Dollar Tree, and Ross. Recently, I was trial counsel in a defamation claim against Bank of America on behalf of a former employee who claimed the Bank blacklisted her with future employers. The jury found Bank of America liable, including for punitive damages.

Personal Interests

Aiman-Smith & Marcy has sponsored me in the Boston Marathon and New York Marathon. When I race, I often wear a “Rockstar Ronan” shirt to support research for childhood cancer through The Ronan Thompson Foundation.

Education

University of California, Berkeley, B.A., 1999

Hastings College of the Law, University of California, J.D., 2004

Randall Aiman-Smith

Abogado (SBN 124599)

Aiman-Smith & Marcy. Oakland consumer fraud attorneys.

Educación y antecedentes

Fui afortunado. A pesar de no haber terminado la escuela secundaria o la universidad, pude -aunque con mucho trabajo- ser admitido y sobresalir en una de las mejores escuelas de derecho del país: La Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Berkeley. Mientras estuve allí, tuve el privilegio de ser editor de la California Law Review y miembro del Moot Court Board, asesorando en la redacción de escritos y en la defensa de apelaciones a otros estudiantes. Después de salir de la escuela de derecho, en mis primeros años de práctica, enseñé la escritura legal y la defensa de apelación en la Universidad de California, Hastings College of the Law. También, a lo largo de los años, he sido presentador en eventos de educación legal continua.

Experiencia legal

He sido abogado durante 35 años. He dedicado mi práctica exclusivamente a representar a empleados, consumidores e inversores en los tribunales estatales y federales de primera instancia y en los tribunales de apelación. Me gusta ir a los tribunales por mis clientes y he llevado muchos casos con jurado en los tribunales estatales y federales.

¿Ejemplos? En 2010, fui la abogada principal, junto con los otros abogados del bufete, en el caso Williams v. Union Pacific Railroad donde, después de cuatro años de preparación, el bufete obtuvo un veredicto del jurado de 1.670.000 dólares para una empleada afroamericana. En Rivero v. Surdyka, fui el abogado principal en el juicio y la apelación de un caso de derechos civiles que duró 15 años, incluyendo un juicio completo y tres apelaciones al Noveno Circuito, concluyendo finalmente con una sentencia para los demandantes de más de 2.300.000 dólares. Estos casos ilustran el lema del bufete: compromiso – resultados. Hay que comprometerse con un caso, a veces durante mucho tiempo, para obtener el resultado que el cliente merece.

No siempre ganamos en el juicio. Cuando eso ocurre, el compromiso significa llevar el caso al siguiente nivel y recurrirlo. En el caso Rivero, antes mencionado, eso fue lo que ocurrió: el tribunal desestimó el caso -habíamos perdido- pero apelamos y conseguimos una victoria para nuestros clientes que mantuvimos a través de dos apelaciones más. Desde entonces, el bufete ha conseguido muchas victorias en apelación que reivindican los derechos de los empleados y los consumidores.

A lo largo de los años he sido abogado de los demandantes en numerosos casos individuales y acciones colectivas. Puede sonar cursi, o difícil de creer, pero después de todo este tiempo, y después de todas las grandes experiencias que he tenido, mi parte favorita de ser abogado es cuando consigo dar un cheque a mi cliente.

 

Educación

Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de California, Berkeley, J.D., 1986