Work Uniform Laws: Know the Rules for Employees and Employers

Work Uniform Laws: An Introduction

Uniforms have long been a staple in many workplaces. From banks to fast food chains and hospitals to hotels, there is no shortage of businesses that require their employees to wear work uniforms. For some employers, the main purpose of work uniforms is to create a cohesive appearance, identifying their employees as well as communicating a professional appearance and generating respect for the business. Other employers use uniforms to reinforce workplace safety, creating a safety garment that protects the employees from hazardous conditions. While the purpose of uniforms may differ, one thing is for certain, and that is they can add up to additional, and unexpected costs for the employer , both in time and money.
A work uniform law is put into effect by the state. In addition to establishing what deal with wage and overtime claims, both federal and state regulations concerning uniforms may apply to an employee’s case. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act establishes a minimum wage for all employees. Federal regulation 29 CFR § 541.602 is known as the General Rule and states that if the cost of a uniform cuts into the minimum wage of the employee (regardless of the amount of the cost), it is impermissible to take any deduction to an employee’s paycheck for the uniform. If the deduction reduces an employee’s paycheck to less than $7.25/hour, it is a violation of federal law. State laws tend to not be as demanding as the General Rule but vary by jurisdiction.

Understanding Federal Work Uniform Laws

Employers are also subject to a variety of federal regulations associated with work uniforms. Such regulations must be followed in addition to state laws discussed above. For example, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that employers compensate employees for any preparatory time they spend putting on or taking off their uniforms. This means that an employer must pay an employee for a few minutes spent putting on necessary safety equipment (like a hard hat, steel-toed boots, safety goggles, etc.) and for any time spent taking off the uniform. Failure to compensate employees for this activity can result in a lawsuit by the employees or enforcement action by the U.S. Department of Labor. State law may also implicate this requirement, but because it is slightly different, it will be handled in the next section. If your business is subject to the FLSA, you cannot require your employees to donate that time.

Navigating State Work Uniform Laws

Work uniform laws vary by state and can be vastly different from the federal footwear requirements. For example, Connecticut requires employers provide uniforms to wait staff free of charge to patrons. Employers must provide uniforms to reliable repairers free of charge, while manufacturers and movers don’t share this same burden of providing free uniforms. 38 states and the District of Columbia require employers to launder uniforms, if they are provided to employees free of charge. California, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey and Massachusetts require laundry "free of charge" if uniforms are worn even rarely, while Colorado and Georgia only when required for workplace safety. These differing regulations underscore the necessity for employers to understand both state and federal regulations as it pertains to work uniforms.

Employer Obligations and Associated Costs

Governing individual state laws, some employers are required to provide employees with proper work uniforms. For employers in need of a reminder, this can include items like shirts, pants, aprons, lab coats, dresses, gloves, hats, or other garments "customarily" worn by the employees as part of their job. Depending on the state, companies could be responsible for providing and paying for all part of uniforms, including laundering as needed, as appropriate.
New York, for example, protects employees under the Industrial Code. It states that employers must provide any uniforms, separate from those worn by the general public, to their employees "without charge." It also requires that these uniforms be "prescribed by the employer as a condition of employment…" Additionally, the Labor Department’s website notes that employers are responsible for furnishing uniforms that can be "worn as an ordinary citizen’s clothing," for no additional cost to the employee, when they are necessary for the job, "if the employee is required to wear them while on duty as either part of the uniform program or as a condition for employment, unless they are interchangeable with personal clothing." This means that if uniforms can be used both as work clothing and regular clothing, employers are only responsible for laundering, repair and maintenance costs.
And employers should note an important caveat to adhere to. According to the New York State Division of Labor Standards, it is the employer’s responsibility to provide and maintain work uniforms until the last day of employment. Should a company receive a call that an employee has issued a complaint about the state of their work uniform, but they have already left the job, it is their responsibility to return the uniform to their company. If they are unreachable, the company must have a policy that states the employee should return the uniform, and that they will be charged for any unreturned items.
Other states require employers to pay for uniforms that could be considered a "special protective clothing" uniform. So whether or not employers need to foot the bill will vary per state. For example, Minnesota law requires that the employer pay for items like safety shoes, headgear or glasses, gloves and similar "protective" items, as they are now considered "uniforms."

Rights and Compliance for Employees

Under a number of anti-discrimination laws, employers cannot impose a dress code that has a discriminatory impact on employees on the basis of religion, sex or national origin. These include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII") and state and local laws imposing similar prohibitions against religious dress codes as well as the Equal Pay Act, which sometimes includes a prohibition against requiring employees to wear clothing for which the employer pays a lower wage.
To the extent that an imposed dress code does not violate Title VII, employers may, for example, require that employees wear a work-related uniform, maintain workplace safety standards, and prevent clothing that makes a poor impression on customers or clients, reveals too much skin, is not in sync with the reflected organizational values or negatively impacts the morale of employees.
If an employee has a sincerely held religious belief that is inconsistent with a dress code policy, he or she can request a reasonable accommodation. Depending on his or her individual circumstances, an employee may be entitled to be exempted from a business’s dress code policy, which may require, for example , using a different colored shirt or pants than other employees, wearing a headscarf, or being permitted to leave work a few hours early to attend religious services. A reasonable accommodation must only meet the employee’s needs to the point of undue hardship on the employer’s business, including discomfort and resentment of co-workers and co-worker safety. Reasonable accommodation efforts may not, however, violate other laws, such as OSHA or EPA requirements.
Sometimes an employee’s sincerely held religious belief may be satisfied through alternative means that are consistent with the employer’s general dress code policy. For example, it would be reasonable for a female nurse working in an operating room to cover her arms with a long sleeved undershirt instead of wearing a short sleeved scrub.
When employees cannot accommodate a work requirement, they are obligated to comply with the employer’s directive until a reasonable accommodation can be established. Minor costs and inconveniences to the employee will oftentimes not be an undue hardship to the employer. The following examples provide guidance on employer dress code policies, religious accommodations, and costs:

Previous Cases and Legal Precedents

Casino Uniform Dispute: Case Study
Our law firm has represented employees in cases wherein they were required to purchase and wear uniforms that the employer deemed "special clothes" under the code, which ultimately resulted in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of the employees.
In that case, certain employees were required to purchase uniforms from the employer’s vendor, after being informed that failure to do so would prohibit them from working at the casino, in either a field or position that required them to wear a uniform. Additionally, the employees were required to return the uniforms to the vendor if/when they were no longer employed.
The employees brought suit under the Wage Payment and Collection Act ("Wage Act") to recover costs incurred when their employer purportedly violated the "direct payment" provision of the Wage Act under N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.2b by requiring them "to purchase and wear special clothes" as a condition of employment. In short, this is a similar provision to the NJ Wage Deduction Law under N.J.S.A. 34:11-9, in that it prohibits making deductions from an employee’s wages, absent a law authorizing such a deduction.
Special clothes means "clothing which is designed and manufactured for the specific use and application within the business of any employer" and does not include uniforms in which the employer required employees to wear and maintain to available to the public for purposes of advertising, promotional or identification value.
The employees also sought to recover costs for not being reimbursed for cleaning uniforms and for being required to wear regular clothes on certain occasions, and leaves and seek reimbursement from the employer for attorneys’ fees.
Fast food chain McDonald’s has been sued for allegedly requiring its servers to wear black dress pants, black socks and black sneakers while denying them health benefits and not reimbursing employees for the uniforms or for dry cleaning. The lawsuit was filed January 24, 2011 in the U.S. District Court of Delaware against a number of McDonald’s franchisees, including a Wendy’s and Burger King franchisee that required employees to wear uniforms, while alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rather than withdrawing the unlawful policies, the franchisees have made some modifications, but continue to bring frivolous motions challenging certain costs.
Question for Employers:
If your employees are required to wear special clothes, is it within the employer’s prerogative to require that they purchase the clothes, but not provide reimbursement for cleaning?
Do you even provide the employees with an option for the employer to clean them?
Have you provided them with any options to obtain these clothing from a different vendor?
If/when they leave your employ, must they return the items and if not, do you think there will be a dispute thereafter regarding whether they can keep the clothing?
How has your workplace been impacted by mandated clothing requirements?
DO YOU THINK THE WORKPLACE WILL BE CHANGED BY RAISING MINIMUM WAGE AND MANDATORY PAID SICK LEAVE IN 2018?

Helpful Tips for Understanding Work Uniform Laws

When it comes to work uniforms, understanding the nuances of work uniform laws can help both employers and employees stay compliant and avoid unnecessary penalties. First and foremost, both employees and employers should familiarize themselves with their respective state’s requirements pertaining to uniforms. Some states do not allow compulsory uniforms at all, while others have specific requirements about dress codes and uniform reimbursement.
For employers, the first step is to ensure that you are in compliance with the requirements of the state or states in which you have employees. Once you confirm that you are complying with any state mandates, take the time to create a thorough uniform policy that outlines all expectations and responsibilities for your employees. Specifically, make sure the policy delineates between what the employer will provide (i.e., uniforms, shoes, etc.) and what the employee is expected to furnish (i.e., undergarments, hair nets, etc.). It is important to clearly spell out what is considered "uniform" and what is not, as items that are deemed "uniform" by the employer may be included in the uniform reimbursement calculation. Following this, consider implementing an acknowledgement form that all employees must read and sign annually and, regardless of state law, it is best practice to provide some advanced notice regarding any changes to or enforcement of the uniform policy. Having documentation that tracks when employees received the policy and are aware of its terms, helps protect the employer from potential legal actions.
If you are a current employee and noticed that your employer has rolled out a new uniform policy (or haven’t enforced one previously), it is in your best interest to review the policy in its entirety to determine if your employer’s policy and practices are complying with federal and state requirements. If your employer’s policy requires you to pay for any items that can be classified as "uniforms," and this becomes a financial hardship on you then you should inform your employer as soon as possible to let them know that they are violating work uniform laws. It is important to understand that you have a right to file an administrative complaint with your state’s agency governing wage claims or to pursue a lawsuit against the employer to recuperate any wrongly withheld pay or costs.
In the end, being knowledgeable and respecting current work uniform laws helps both employees and employers to maintain lawful operations.

Conclusion and What to Expect in the Future

The body of law surrounding work uniforms is dynamic, not static. Social, economic, political, and technological changes inevitably influence the law. Although it can be difficult to predict the future, a few trends are probable. One is that the trend toward work uniform requirements will continue over time. In addition to a desire to maintain a level playing field among employees and to project a consistent and professional image to customers, it may be the case that the lower costs of work uniforms might enable some employers to bypass their requirements for non-uniform clothing. Whatever the case, it is likely that the prevalence of employer-mandated uniforms or dress codes will continue to increase.
It is also likely that workplaces will continue to become more casual over time. The business casual movement has continued to grow since its origin in the 1990s. It is a movement that is iconoclastic by its nature, and most well-established dress codes are challenged and ultimately overthrown by less formal dress codes. Companies with uniforms have generally been slow to adopt more relaxed standards. Still, over time, some employers are likely to either eliminate uniform requirements altogether, or at least to implement spending limits for uniforms that are comparatively low.
Moreover, it is possible that the ranks of the workforce will become more populated by those for whom workplace attire is even less important or even indifferent. Notwithstanding generational differences, in a world of ever-increasing screen time, clothing may become less important . For example, many more study materials are now online, and if these trends persist, clothing may come to be regarded as something like a prop. This loss of importance of clothing might help to facilitate a trend toward more relaxed business attire. In the end, professional attire may gradually become more like costumes as the lines between work and leisure become further blurred.
It is also likely that workplace attire will continue to become more casual as the distinction between work and leisure continues to disappear. Certainly, people often dress less formally than they did a generation or two ago. Video conferencing is increasingly superseding face-to-face meetings. Social media is being used not only for interactions that don’t take place in person, but also to supplement them. It would not be surprising if this trend continued, and if it did, the role and importance of workplace attire would likely decrease. Whatever the case, it wouldn’t be surprising if, in the not-too-distant future, workplace attire again became less important and less formal.
Any changes to workplace attire could influence whether or not an employee might be required to wear uniforms. Still, the larger issue is more likely to be the role of the workforce as a whole, not the characteristics of individual employees. In this regard, it is also not likely that an increasing proportion of the workforce will be made up of people to whom workplace attire is relatively unimportant.