- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- in United States
- within Employment and HR, Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives and HR
- with readers working within the Insurance industries
Starbucks employees have recently filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, accusing it of violating the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA) by implementing a new dress code without reimbursing employees for the expense of purchasing compliant clothing.
The CWCA provides that an employer must pay the cost of an employee's uniform if the uniform requires a specific color, make, pattern, logo, or material. Importantly, however, clothing that is considered ordinary streetwear does not constitute a uniform.
Starbucks sought to meet this standard by establishing a dress code policy that permits employees to wear streetwear, provided it meets specific criteria: solid black tops (including crewneck, collared, or button-up shirts with sleeves, lightweight jackets, or crew neck sweatshirts); bottoms in solid black, khaki, or dark blue; and waterproof footwear in designated styles and colors. The policy also specified prohibited categories of pants, tops, and shoes.
Starbucks' dress code policy also places several restrictions on baristas and shift supervisors, including bans on jewelry (including wedding rings), watches, visible tattoos (and attempts to conceal prohibited tattoos), nail polish, artificial nails, and gloves used to hide nail polish or artificial nails.
As relevant to the lawsuit, certain employees claim that they did not own clothing that complied with Starbucks' "restrictive" dress code policy, and that Starbucks refused to reimburse the plaintiffs for purchases made to comply with the policy in violation of the CWCA, which prohibits employers from requiring workers to pay for an expense that primarily benefits the employer.
As we noted in a previous article, the penalty for a "willful" violation of the CWCA is triple the amount owed or $3,000 per employee (whichever is greater). In other words, Starbucks may need to pay each employee $3,000 as reimbursement for clothing that likely costs far less than that amount. As this is a class action, Starbucks' liability could be significant, and the company may face substantial financial consequences.
This case is likely to spawn additional lawsuits against employers with dress codes requiring employees to purchase new clothing. Although such policies may appear to comply with Colorado law, problems emerge when employees lack clothing that meets the specific requirements—even when the mandated attire consists of common "streetwear" that workers would not ordinarily need to buy.
Employers should review their dress code policies to ensure they are not overly restrictive and consider our previous article on dress code policies for guidance.
Originally published September 22, 2025
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
