Townley v. BJ's Rests., Inc., 37 Cal. App. 5th 179

Krista Townley worked as a server at BJ’s in California and was required by BJ’s safety policy to wear black, slip-resistant, close-toed shoes; she bought compliant shoes and was not reimbursed.
Townley sued under PAGA (Lab. Code § 2698 et seq.), alleging BJ’s violated Lab. Code § 2802 by failing to reimburse employees for the cost of required slip-resistant shoes.
Townley abandoned any theory predicated on Cal‑OSHA §§ 6401/6403 and framed her claim solely on § 2802 reimbursement obligations.
BJ’s moved for summary judgment arguing § 2802 does not require reimbursement for non‑uniform, generally usable work clothing (and alternatively invoked OSHA/Cal‑OSHA preemption/limitations).
The trial court granted summary judgment for BJ’s, reasoning that the cost of non‑specialty slip‑resistant shoes is not a “necessary expenditure” under § 2802 (relying on OSHA/Cal‑OSHA guidance to harmonize statutes).
The Court of Appeal affirmed, following Ninth Circuit reasoning that California law does not require employers to reimburse employees for basic non‑uniform wardrobe items such as non‑specialty slip‑resistant shoes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lab. Code § 2802 requires reimbursement for slip‑resistant shoes	§ 2802 independently requires employers to reimburse necessary expenditures incurred to perform duties	§ 2802 does not require reimbursement for non‑uniform, generally usable work clothing; OSHA/Cal‑OSHA limit reimbursement duties	Section 2802 does not require reimbursement for non‑specialty slip‑resistant shoes; summary judgment for employer affirmed

Lemus v. Denny's Inc., 617 Fed.Appx. 701 (9th Cir.) (reasoned § 2802 does not obligate employers to pay for non‑uniform, generally usable work shoes)
Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal.5th 829 (Cal.) (DLSE opinion letters are nonbinding guidance courts may consult)
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal.) (standard of review for summary judgment)