CA law on clothing.

The only employer that requires a person to polish her/his shoes is the US military in its several forms.

Some police agencies required it years ago, but with the advent of special soles and boots for law enforcement, I don't know of one that requires it for daily wear.

Of course, certain ceremonial events require more formal attire.

Bottom line, in California I don't think there would be a law even close to requiring some one to polish her/his shoes, as many shoes today aren't leather and can't be shined, or in the case of some pleathers, they come permanently shined.

I think your guy is mistaken.

However, that doesn't mean he can't be terminated for looking unprofessional, in the eye of his superior.

 

As near as I can determine this is what he could be talking about.

Your CA Labor Code, section 2802 (a) provides that “the employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer....”

Briefly stated, if that's possible with "legalese" says: If an employer requires employees to wear a uniform, the employer must purchase and pay for maintenance and cleaning of the uniform.

It would seem that if the employer requires "dress shoes", under the aforementioned Labor Code, the employer would be required to buy the clothes and shoes, as well as provide money for maintaining the shoes and clothing.

The term "uniform" is broad. It means "wearing apparel of distinctive design or color."

The term "distinctive design" covers traditional "uniforms," such as one worn by law enforcement officers.

The definition of "uniform" also includes clothing of a particular "color" even if the clothes do not have an insignia or are not of a particular design.

An example might be, if the employer requires workers to wear a red shirt, even one without an insignia, the employer must pay for it because it is of "distinctive" color.

One might try to make the argument about "black, dress, polished shoes".

Employers seeking to avoid paying for clothing specify "dark" pants and "light" colored shirts instead of particular colors.

If you are required to wear black pants and shoes, but there is no requirement for the shirt, you are in a half-way no-man's-land.

The same issue if it's just "black polished shoes", rather than "Brand XYZ black shoes, highly polished".

However, if an employee pushes too hard, the employer often pushes back.

This is a very treacherous road he's about to tread.

 

Your friend is wrong. There is no such law.

 

If uniforms must be worn, the employer must provide them at no cost to the employee, particularly if it would result in the employee making less than minimum wage. If the employer dictated a specific shoe that had to be worn, that would qualify as a "uniform". If it was an article of clothing that could not realistically be worn outside the workplace, that too would constitute a uniform. "Shiny shoes" do not. That just falls under dress code and is entirely legal. Such shoes can be picked up at virtually any shoe store and could be worn off work without raising eyebrows.

 

Just to add...providing uniforms as discussed above only applies to non-exempt employees.

I don't believe the shoes must be provided in this case. It isn't any different than requiring an employee to wear a collared shirt.

Your friend is part right. There are laws about this sort of thing, but it doesn't apply regarding his shiny shoes.

 

Here's an article that discusses the applicable law.

Additional information and confirmation can be found with a relatively simple Google search.