Opinion ID: 723390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Employees' Dresses

Text: 34 Defendants argue that the district court erred as a matter of law in holding that they should pay for the employees' cocktail dresses worn at work. Where the nature of an employer's business requires the employee to wear a uniform, the employer may not require her to pay for it if the cost of purchase and cleaning brings the average wage below the minimum wage. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 531.3(d)(1), (2), 531.32(c). Whether a prescribed outfit is considered a uniform is made on a case-by-case basis. See 6A Lab.Rel.Rep. p 95:109. 35 Defendants would have us say that this situation is similar to a requirement that male employees wear white shirts and dark trousers on the job. Those men would be required to pay for their own outfits. See Wage Hour Publication 1428 (March 1984). We find no similarity. These sexy dresses were of no use except at the nightclubs and were not worn elsewhere. 3 36 The uniforms must be paid for by the defendants. CONCLUSION: 37 We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. The defendants' request for attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1), (b), (d)(1)(A), is denied. The parties will bear their own costs on this appeal. 38 AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.