Ralph Lauren hit by ill-fitting lawsuit

Toni Young never meant to be a queen of high fashion. She just wanted a job.

The 31-year-old was hired five years ago as a sales assistant at a Polo Ralph Lauren store in San Francisco. It did not pay particularly well – just $22,000 (£14,500) a year – and it paid even worse when Ms Young became aware of one of the stipulations of the job: wearing up-to-date Polo outfits that she was expected to fork out for herself.

According to a lawsuit that Ms Young has just filed in federal court, she has spent $35,000 on clothing and accessories since 1997, or roughly one-third of her meagre salary over the period. Not only is that unfair, her lawyers and the state Labour Commission argue, it is also illegal.

Although launched by a single employee, and a disgruntled one at that (Ms Young is also suing for racial discrimination), the case has nevertheless blown open a widespread practice in the retail trade known as "wardrobing". According to numerous industry experts who have weighed in on the issue, the lawsuit could profoundly alter the way clothes are sold, in California and possibly far beyond.

The principle behind wardrobing is that outlets such as Polo or Armani Exchange – or, at the other end of the spectrum, The Gap and Old Navy – want their employees to model the products on sale in their stores.

But the retailers are not willing simply to give their clothes away. In most cases, they offer an employee discount – sometimes quite a hefty one – and in return the employees are expected to keep buying in-house clothes for work. On the face of it, the deal offered to Toni Young was not a bad one. She enjoyed a 65 per cent discount on all Polo gear.

But given the steep price tags – up to $600 for a sweater, or $3,000 for a jacket – even the discount left her with some hefty clothing bills. And she says she was pressured into wearing the newest, most expensive lines. Inspectors would come round regularly and cite her for disciplinary infringements if her appearance was deemed to fall short.

More importantly, California has a strict law making it illegal for companies to force their employees to pay for a uniform. A "uniform" is defined by the law as any clothing of a specified design or manufacturer, including a specific fashion brand. In other words, if a clothing store wants to wardrobe its employees, it has to foot the bill itself.

The state Labour Commission has been looking into the issue for some time, and concluded that what the industry deems "standard practice" may well be actionable. "If the allegations are correct, then what Polo Ralph Lauren are doing is absolutely illegal," said Miles Locker, a commission lawyer. In the past, his office has brought successful clothing-related cases against Blockbuster Video and Target discount department stores, and has two more in the works.

Some retailers say it is up to the employee what to wear but then exert enormous pressure on them to wear company clothes. Mr Locker said such pressure was also illegal.

Polo Ralph Lauren has yet to respond to the lawsuit and is not commenting. Several other companies, however, have expressed concern about what might happen if Ms Young wins. Guess, for example, acknowledges that employees are "highly encouraged" to wear Guess clothing. The Gap has a similar policy – telling employees they must wear "Gap-like" clothing.