Month: July 2016

July 18, 2016 Posted By Patricia Kakalec

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Mandatory Reimbursement For Purchase And Maintenance Of Work Uniforms In New York State


1. Does your employer require you to wear a uniform on the job?

If so, under New York law your employer may be required to pay the cost of your uniform and the cost of your uniform maintenance.

2. Do you work in a RESTAURANT OR HOTEL?

If so, your employer must pay for your uniform.   Your employer must also pay you a uniform maintenance allowance unless you are provided with enough “wash and wear” uniforms.   (See below).

3. Do you work in ANOTHER INDUSTRY?

If so, your employer must in most cases follow the uniform cost and uniform maintenance allowance rules if your uniform cost and maintenance would reduce your hourly wage to below the New York State minimum wage, which is currently $9.00 per hour.

4. What is a required uniform?

  • A required uniform is clothing worn by an employee, at the request of the employer, while performing job-related duties or to comply with State or local law.
  • Clothing that may be worn as part of your ordinary wardrobe is not a required uniform.
  • For example, if your employer requires that you wear black pants and a white shirt to work, that is probably not a required uniform.

5. If I work in a restaurant or hotel (i.e., the HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY), is my employer required to reimburse me for my uniform and uniform maintenance?

Generally, yes.

  • When you purchase a required uniform, you must be reimbursed by your employer for the cost of your uniform on your next pay date.
  • In addition, your employer is required to maintain that uniform, which generally means laundering or dry cleaning the uniform, depending on its materials. If your employer does not maintain your uniform directly, the employer must pay you a weekly uniform maintenance allowance to cover the cost of your maintaining the uniform yourself.
  • Currently, the uniform maintenance allowance in New York State is $11.20 per week for employees who work at least 30 hours per week.
  • The amount of the allowance is lower employees who work fewer hours.

Are there any situations in which an employer in the hospitality (restaurant or hotel) industry does not need to pay for uniform laundering?

Yes.  As applies to hotels and restaurants, there is a limited exception to the uniform maintenance requirement:

  • Your employer can avoid paying you the uniform maintenance allowance if it provides you enough uniforms for the average number of days you work in a week.
  • For example, if you work six days a week and are required to wear a shirt with a company logo each day, you should get six shirts for your use.
  • This exception only applies to “wash and wear” uniforms – that is, uniforms that can be regularly washed and dried with other personal garments, and which do not require ironing, dry cleaning, daily washing, or other special treatment.
  • If your employer does not give you sufficient uniforms to meet this exception, your employer must pay you a uniform maintenance allowance weekly, which is currently $11.20 per week.

6. OUTSIDE of the hospitality industry, what are the rules regarding purchasing and laundering of uniforms?

  • Your employer must pay your uniform cost and your uniform maintenance allowance if the cost of the uniform and its maintenance would reduce your hourly wage to below the state minimum wage of $9.00 per hour.
  • Uniform maintenance allowance is currently $11.20 per week.
  • Uniform maintenance allowances must be paid in addition to your hourly wage, and cannot be credited toward the minimum wage.

7. Are there any types of workers that are exempt from the rules described above?

These rules apply to all employees in New York State except:

  • Government employees;
  • Farm employees;
  • Those working in an executive, administrative, or professional capacity;
  • Taxi drivers;
  • Outside salespeople; and
  • Certain other categories

In addition to the rules under New York State law, federal law (the Fair Labor Standards Act) also imposes some limitations on uniform charges.

Do you have questions about your rights on the job with respect to uniforms?   Our attorneys have deep experience litigating uniform violations.   Call Kakalec & Schlanger at (212) 500-6114 x103 for a consultation. 

July 10, 2016 Posted By Daniel Schlanger

Dan Schlanger of Kakalec & Schlanger, LLP to give Lawline CLE on Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Kakalec & Schlanger, LLP is pleased to announce that partner Dan Schlanger will be presenting a Lawline CLE webcast on July 27th at 9:30 a.m.  The course description for the CLE, titled The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: Bringing Suit Based on State Court Litigation and Judgment Enforcement Misconduct, is available here.

Update: Dan’s CLE on FDCPA litigation re: state court collection misconduct was well-received (95% recommendation rate). To purchase and view, click here.

Posted By Daniel Schlanger

Kakalec & Schlanger Obtains Reversal of Report & Recommendation Dismissing American Suzuki Financial Services From Consumer’s Truth In Lending Act Suit

Kakalec & Schlanger recently obtained reversal of a report and recommendation in a Truth In Lending Act suit brought in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of an elderly consumer who alleges that she was forced by an auto dealer to purchase numerous supplemental products as a condition of financing.

The decision, issued in Pierre v. Planet Automotive, Inc, docket #, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80884 (E.D.N.Y. June 21, 2016), reversed multiple aspects of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, pursuant to which all of the consumer’s claims against the loan assignee, American Suzuki Financial Services, would have been dismissed. The District Court declined to adopt the magistrate’s report and the consumer retains her claims against the assignee under the Truth In Lending Act, New York’s false advertising statute (New York General Business Law Section 350) and for fraud. The consumer is represented by Kakalec & Schlanger, LLP partner Dan Schlanger.

Posted By Daniel Schlanger

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari In re Midland Funding, LLC Interest Rate Litigation: Consumer’s Victory Before Second Circuit Stands

The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in re Midland Funding, LLC Interest Rate Litigation, in which Kakalec & Schlanger, LLP represents a putative class of approximately 50,000 consumers seeking to hold debt buyer Midland Funding, LLC liable for attempting to collect interest in excess of New York’s criminal usury rate of 25 percent.

The Second Circuit held in May 2015 that National Bank Act preemption does not apply to third party debt buyers in situations where there is no continuing national bank involvement post-assignment, reversing the District Court’s ruling on this issue.  Following the Second Circuit’s opinion, Midland sought re-hearing, with several major banking and financial industry organizations filing amicus briefs in support.  After rehearing was denied, Midland petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case, again with the support of numerous industry amici. The Supreme Court denied Midland’s petition without discussion.

Dan Schlanger, who heads Kakalec & Schlanger’s consumer practice, handled Plaintiff’s Second Circuit appeal.  Before the Supreme Court, Plaintiff was represented by Dan Schlanger, Tejinder Singh of Goldstein & Russell, and Professor Sam Bagenstos of University of Michigan Law School.  The case is currently pending before the District Court, with cross motions for class certification and summary judgment pending.