In Re Work Uniform Cases

Good Law
133 Cal. App. 4th 328·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1588·2005 Daily Journal DAR 12187·34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 635·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8931
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 11, 2005A107130California6,564 words

Opinion

Opinion

Marchiano, J.

A public employee’s uniform is an identifying mark of distinction and a source of pride for the employee and those he or she serves. But who bears the financial burden for mandated uniforms? A number of public employees filed class action complaints against their employers alleging that the failure to compensate all members of the plaintiff class for the actual cost of purchasing, replacing, cleaning and maintaining required work uniforms constituted violations of the indemnification provisions of Labor Code section 2802. The trial court in these coordinated actions sustained demurrers without leave to amend as to all complaints, and the employees appealed. We hold that section 2802 does not require public entities to pay claims for costs related to employee work uniforms and affirm.

BACKGROUND

The coordinated proceeding consists of seven cases filed by employees against their employers, which include the state, the Regents of the University of California, two charter counties (Fresno, Santa Clara), two general law counties (Yolo, Tuolumne), and a charter city (Fresno), seeking indemnification under section 2802 for the actual cost of uniforms and maintenance. Goshorn…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.