Legal Question in Employment Law in Illinois
ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit. 56, � 300.840
In Illinois, an employer may not deduct the cost of purchasing
and/or cleaning uniforms required by the employer from an
employee�s wages or final compensation, unless the employee�s
express written consent is given freely at the time the deduction
is made. Distinctive outfits or accessories, or both, intended to
identify the employee with a specific employer are considered
uniforms. If an employer requires a general type of ordinary
basic street clothing to be worn, but permits variations in the
detail of dress, this is not considered a uniform. However, when
an employer requires that an employee purchase street clothes
either from the employer or from a third party designated by the
employer, the clothing is considered a uniform. Thus, it appears
that the special shirts ordered for Illinois employees in this case
must be paid for by the employer.
If a company decides that you must wear a specific brand and color of pants, does this qualify as must be paid for by employer? The company that I work for has always had shirts that we must wear, but allowed for a generic style khaki pant. Now the company is requiring that we wear a specific brand and color of pant, and that we must purchase this ourselves. I am wondering about the legality of this, as I usually purchase a much higher quality pant for the same price as the pant they are now requiring.
1 Answer from Attorneys
My reading of the provision is that since you can still choose the store (unless it is obvious that ONLY one store sells the brand and color) it is not a uniform, but I have not seen if an Illinois appellate court has addressed the issue. Sorry I don't have access to the necessary research tool to do so. However, it's somewhat silly in my opinion as well, because even though it sounds as though the company wants to try to guaranty everyone will look alike, there are variations in dye lots and not all styles come in both men's AND women's versions; hence their attempted policy is inherently flawed and may have equal opportunity implications.