I am a #1 fan of Chipotle’s burrito bowls, but I can honestly say that even with my frequent patronage I never noticed the shoes that employees wear. Too distracted by cheese, maybe. Footwear is a reason why the company may have gotten themselves into a labor law issue when a California employee brought a lawsuit against the chain, with allegations that they violated the Labor Code section 3751. That, like a double chicken, double cheese, extra sour cream and guac stuffed burrito, doesn’t sit well with me. This section of the code bans employers from taking contributions for workers’ comp fees from their employees, or taking deductions from employees to cover any part of workers’ compensation costs, whether directly or indirectly. In this case, Chipotle used a company called Shoes for Crews to buy nonslip shoes for their workers. Using the shoe service earned them a discount on workers’ comp premiums, and the shoe company promised that if a Chipotle worker slipped and fell at work, the shoe company would pay the bills. If workers were buying the shoes or getting money taken out of their paycheck for the shoes- were they in some way paying for their own workers’ comp coverage?

Shoes for Crews promised that if an employee slipped and fell while wearing their shoes, they would reimburse direct medical expenses paid for workers’ comp. Chipotle employees could buy the shoes directly from them or take a payroll deduction through Chipotle to pay for them. Because Chipotle was using this safety program, they received a deduction in their workers’ comp premiums as well as having a warranty from Shoes for Crews for medical expenses. The employee who brought the suit, Lewings, got money taken out of her paychecks for the shoes. There was another worker who was injured and Shoes for Crews paid $25,000 for the bills.

The employee argues that by implementing this program and asking employees to buy the shoes, they were almost asking them to pay for their own workers’ comp expenses. They did not reimburse employees for the cost of the shoes if they were fired.

The appellate district court reversed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the case, and determined that Chipotle did violate the code’s section 3751. The warranties from Shoes for Crews to pay for medical bills were put on Chipotle employees to bear since they purchased shoes that funded the ability for Shoes for Crews to even have this warranty, therefore employees indirectly contributed to their own workers’ comp. Chipotle had a contract which guaranteed medical payments for slip and fall injuries and employees were paying. This decision could mean the revival of a class action lawsuit from employees that was rejected in an earlier appeal.