{"id":657,"date":"2019-08-08T18:06:00","date_gmt":"2019-08-08T22:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/caloshadefensereport.com\/?p=657"},"modified":"2026-03-15T23:04:35","modified_gmt":"2026-03-15T23:04:35","slug":"calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Calif. Employers Are Not Required To Reimburse Restaurant Workers For the Cost of Slip-Resistant Shoes"},"content":{"rendered":"

By\u00a0Megan Shaked<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Andrew J. Sommer<\/a><\/p>\n

A recent California Court of Appeals decision in\u00a0Townley v. BJ\u2019s Restaurants, Inc<\/em>.<\/a>, has further defined the scope of reimbursable business expenses under California Labor Code section 2802, this time in the context of slip-resistant shoes for restaurant workers.<\/p>\n

\"\"A former server filed an action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), seeking civil penalties on behalf of herself and other \u201caggrieved employees\u201d for California Labor Code violations, including the failure to reimburse the cost of slip-resistant shoes.\u00a0 Plaintiff alleged a violation of\u00a0Labor Code section 2802<\/a>, which requires an employer to reimburse employees for all necessary expenditures incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff argued that, because the restaurant required employees to wear slip-resistant, black, closed-toes shoes for safety reasons, such shoes should be provided free of cost or employees should be reimbursed for their cost.<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal, persuaded by the reasoning in an unpublished Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision,\u00a0Lemus v. Denny\u2019s, Inc<\/em><\/a>., and guidance from the California\u2019s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), held that section 2802 did not require the restaurant employer to reimburse its employees for the cost of slip-resistant shoes.\u00a0 Specifically, the Court held that the cost of shoes does not qualify as a \u201cnecessary expenditure\u201d under section 2802.<\/p>\n

In reaching its decision, the Court\u00a0<\/span>followed the reasoning in\u00a0Lemus<\/em>, citing a\u00a0DLSE opinion letter<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe definition and [DLSE] enforcement policy is sufficiently flexible to allow the employer to specify basic wardrobe items which are\u00a0usual and generally usable in the occupation<\/em>, such as white shirts, dark pants and black shoes and belts, all of unspecified design, without requiring the employer to furnish such items.\u00a0 If a required black or white uniform or\u00a0accessory<\/em>\u00a0does not meet the test of being generally usable in the occupation the [employee] may not be required to pay for it.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here, the plaintiff did not argue that the slip-resistant shoes were part of a \u201cuniform\u201d or were not usual and generally usable in the restaurant occupation.\u00a0 The restaurant did not require employees to purchase a specific brand, style, or design of shoes and did not prohibit employees from wearing their shoes outside of work.<\/p>\n

Under California law, a restaurant employer must pay for its employees\u2019 work clothing if the clothing is a \u201cuniform\u201d or if the clothing qualifies as certain protective apparel regulated by OSHA or California\u2019s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal\/OSHA).\u00a0\u00a0Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 5-2001<\/a>, governs the public housekeeping industry, including restaurants.\u00a0\u00a0\"\"<\/a>Under Wage Order No. 5, uniforms must be provided and maintained by the employer when the uniforms are required by the employer to be worn by the employee as a condition of employment.\u00a0 \u201cUniform\u201d includes \u201cwearing apparel and accessories of distinctive design or color.\u201d\u00a0 This section of the wage order specifically does not apply to protective equipment and safety devices regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board.<\/p>\n

On appeal, the plaintiff abandoned her alternative theory of liability that reimbursement was owed under provisions of Cal\/OSHA, Labor Code sections 6401 and 6403, which require employers to furnish and provide safety equipment to employees.<\/p>\n

The trial court had held that OSHA and Cal\/OSHA provide than an employer is not required to reimburse employees for the cost of non-specialty shoes that offer slip-resistant characteristics, but are otherwise ordinary clothing in nature.\u00a0 However, the Court of Appeal ultimately did not decide the applicability of OSHA or Cal\/OSHA.\u00a0 Likewise, the Ninth Circuit in\u00a0Lemus v. Denny\u2019s, Inc.<\/em>\u00a0did not address whether Cal\/OSHA requires reimbursement of slip-resistant footwear.<\/p>\n

After the decision in\u00a0Townley<\/em>, there remains a question of whether reimbursement for the cost of slip-resistant shoes could be required under Cal\/OSHA for safety reasons.\u00a0 Under Federal OSHA regulations, employers must generally provide personal protective equipment at no cost to the employee.\u00a0 The regulation specifically includes an exemption for non-specialty safety-toe protective footwear, which the employer permits to be worn off the job-site.\u00a0 Employers are also not required to pay for everyday clothing, including street shoes and normal work boots.\u00a0 Under California law,\"\"<\/a>\u00a0if protective equipment is required by Cal\/OSHA, the employer is responsible for paying for the safety equipment.\u00a0 There is no Cal\/OSHA regulation equivalent to the Federal exemption for generic non-specialty shoes.\u00a0 While California employers have argued (and the trial court in\u00a0Townley<\/em>\u00a0concluded) that the Federal exemption should control in California, the California Court of Appeal and Ninth Circuit have so far left that question unanswered.<\/p>\n

Takeaways<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although we now have clarity that California Labor Code section 2802 does not require reimbursement of the cost of slip-resistant footwear, there remains the question of whether such footwear could constitute reimbursable protective equipment under Cal\/OSHA safety standards.\u00a0 Although\u00a0Townley\u00a0<\/em>and the Federal OSHA exemption provide some guidance for California employers, they are reminded that neither are necessarily binding or precedential.\u00a0 As such, it will be important for employers to track California caselaw in this area, as well as look out for Cal\/OSHA guidance.\u00a0 In the meantime, employers are encouraged to periodically review their policies and practices for reimbursing employee business expenses to ensure compliance with California law, including Cal\/OSHA regulations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By\u00a0Megan Shaked\u00a0and\u00a0Andrew J. Sommer A recent California Court of Appeals decision in\u00a0Townley v. BJ\u2019s Restaurants, Inc., has further defined the scope of reimbursable business expenses under California Labor Code section 2802, this time in the context of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[452],"tags":[505,476],"class_list":["post-657","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-labor-employment-intersections","tag-private-attorneys-general-act-paga","tag-retail-hospitality"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nCalif. Employers Are Not Required To Reimburse Restaurant Workers For the Cost of Slip-Resistant Shoes - Cal\/OSHA Defense Report<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Calif. Employers Are Not Required To Reimburse Restaurant Workers For the Cost of Slip-Resistant Shoes - Cal\/OSHA Defense Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By\u00a0Megan Shaked\u00a0and\u00a0Andrew J. Sommer A recent California Court of Appeals decision in\u00a0Townley v. BJ\u2019s Restaurants, Inc., has further defined the scope of reimbursable business expenses under California Labor Code section 2802, this time in the context of…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Cal\/OSHA Defense Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-08-08T22:06:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-15T23:04:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Megan Shaked\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Megan Shaked\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Megan Shaked\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7578490ed0281f27eb10549b4ec613bc\"},\"headline\":\"Calif. Employers Are Not Required To Reimburse Restaurant Workers For the Cost of Slip-Resistant Shoes\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-08-08T22:06:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-15T23:04:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":893,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i1.wp.com\\\/oshadefensereport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2019\\\/08\\\/bjs-restaurant-case.png?resize=323%2C298&ssl=1\",\"keywords\":[\"Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)\",\"Retail & Hospitality\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Labor & Employment Intersections\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"Calif. Employers Are Not Required To Reimburse Restaurant Workers For the Cost of Slip-Resistant Shoes - Cal\\\/OSHA Defense Report\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i1.wp.com\\\/oshadefensereport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2019\\\/08\\\/bjs-restaurant-case.png?resize=323%2C298&ssl=1\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-08-08T22:06:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-15T23:04:35+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7578490ed0281f27eb10549b4ec613bc\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i1.wp.com\\\/oshadefensereport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2019\\\/08\\\/bjs-restaurant-case.png?resize=323%2C298&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i1.wp.com\\\/oshadefensereport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2019\\\/08\\\/bjs-restaurant-case.png?resize=323%2C298&ssl=1\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Calif. Employers Are Not Required To Reimburse Restaurant Workers For the Cost of Slip-Resistant Shoes\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/\",\"name\":\"Cal\\\/OSHA Defense Report\",\"description\":\"Conn Maciel Carey\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7578490ed0281f27eb10549b4ec613bc\",\"name\":\"Megan Shaked\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2a697547ee2beee96c9e821e18131668caa60e581eecf6969b5923b7fc6a5575?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2a697547ee2beee96c9e821e18131668caa60e581eecf6969b5923b7fc6a5575?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2a697547ee2beee96c9e821e18131668caa60e581eecf6969b5923b7fc6a5575?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Megan Shaked\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/calosha-defense-report\\\/author\\\/meganshaked\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Calif. Employers Are Not Required To Reimburse Restaurant Workers For the Cost of Slip-Resistant Shoes - Cal\/OSHA Defense Report","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Calif. Employers Are Not Required To Reimburse Restaurant Workers For the Cost of Slip-Resistant Shoes - Cal\/OSHA Defense Report","og_description":"By\u00a0Megan Shaked\u00a0and\u00a0Andrew J. Sommer A recent California Court of Appeals decision in\u00a0Townley v. BJ\u2019s Restaurants, Inc., has further defined the scope of reimbursable business expenses under California Labor Code section 2802, this time in the context of…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/","og_site_name":"Cal\/OSHA Defense Report","article_published_time":"2019-08-08T22:06:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-15T23:04:35+00:00","author":"Megan Shaked","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Megan Shaked","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/"},"author":{"name":"Megan Shaked","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/7578490ed0281f27eb10549b4ec613bc"},"headline":"Calif. Employers Are Not Required To Reimburse Restaurant Workers For the Cost of Slip-Resistant Shoes","datePublished":"2019-08-08T22:06:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-15T23:04:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/"},"wordCount":893,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/oshadefensereport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/bjs-restaurant-case.png?resize=323%2C298&ssl=1","keywords":["Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)","Retail & Hospitality"],"articleSection":["Labor & Employment Intersections"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/","name":"Calif. Employers Are Not Required To Reimburse Restaurant Workers For the Cost of Slip-Resistant Shoes - Cal\/OSHA Defense Report","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/oshadefensereport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/bjs-restaurant-case.png?resize=323%2C298&ssl=1","datePublished":"2019-08-08T22:06:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-15T23:04:35+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/7578490ed0281f27eb10549b4ec613bc"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/oshadefensereport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/bjs-restaurant-case.png?resize=323%2C298&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/oshadefensereport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/bjs-restaurant-case.png?resize=323%2C298&ssl=1"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/calif-employers-are-not-required-to-reimburse-restaurant-workers-for-the-cost-of-slip-resistant-shoes-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Calif. Employers Are Not Required To Reimburse Restaurant Workers For the Cost of Slip-Resistant Shoes"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/","name":"Cal\/OSHA Defense Report","description":"Conn Maciel Carey","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/7578490ed0281f27eb10549b4ec613bc","name":"Megan Shaked","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2a697547ee2beee96c9e821e18131668caa60e581eecf6969b5923b7fc6a5575?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2a697547ee2beee96c9e821e18131668caa60e581eecf6969b5923b7fc6a5575?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2a697547ee2beee96c9e821e18131668caa60e581eecf6969b5923b7fc6a5575?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Megan Shaked"},"url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/author\/meganshaked\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/657","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=657"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/657\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5014,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/657\/revisions\/5014"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=657"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=657"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/calosha-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=657"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}