I work in California, our company's workplace guidelines require us to wear all black shoes, I wear orthopedic shoes that are mostly black with Grey at the bottom, I got written up for them being out of uniform, can I legally ask for them to accommodate them?
Throughout my adolescent and adult life I've worn either boots or orthopedic shoes because of my wide feet. I walk several miles to go to work and regular sneakers end up hurting my feet. I wear orthopedics because they're the most comfortable and the ones that fit me the best. Could I get the company to accommodate them? I don't have a disability, it's simply based on the fact that I walk to and from work. If I didn't need to walk so much I could wear any kind of shoe that fits under their uniform policy.
Jobadvisor
This is a great question, and the answer depends on a few key factors. Here's an honest breakdown:
The short answer: It may be difficult, but worth trying.
The challenge with your situation
The strongest legal protection for uniform exemptions in California comes from disability accommodation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the federal ADA. These require employers to make reasonable accommodations for disabilities — and you've noted you don't have a diagnosed disability. Wide feet alone, without a medical condition underlying them, likely wouldn't qualify.
Where you might have a case
That said, there are a few angles worth exploring:
- Medical documentation matters. If a doctor has ever prescribed or recommended orthopedic shoes — even informally — that significantly strengthens your position. A podiatrist could potentially document that your foot structure requires orthopedic footwear, which could cross the threshold into a recognized physical condition even if you don't think of it as a "disability."
- California's FEHA is broader than the ADA. California defines disability more expansively than federal law — it includes conditions that limit a major life activity, not just those that substantially limit one. Chronic foot pain or a structural foot issue could potentially qualify.
- You can always simply ask. Nothing stops you from requesting an accommodation informally. Explain the situation, offer to get a doctor's note, and propose that the shoes be allowed given that they're mostly compliant (predominantly black). Many employers will agree rather than deal with the friction.
What you should do
- See a podiatrist. Get your foot situation documented professionally. If they recommend orthopedic shoes, get that in writing.
- Submit a formal accommodation request in writing to HR, referencing the medical recommendation. This creates a paper trail and triggers the employer's legal obligation to engage in a "good faith interactive process" under FEHA.
- Don't frame it as preference — frame it as a medical need supported by a professional recommendation.
The realistic outlook
Without a medical/disability angle, the employer is likely within their rights to enforce the uniform policy. But with even modest medical documentation, you put yourself in a much stronger position — and California law requires employers to at least engage with accommodation requests rather than flatly refuse them.
It's also worth consulting with an employment attorney; many offer free initial consultations. Given that California is very employee-friendly, it may be worth a quick call.
Note: I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice — just general information to help you understand your options.
Manger uncomfortable I notified HR of pregnancy
Hello!
I’m confused about a situation I have ongoing at work. I’m 13.5 weeks pregnant right now and have a history of recurrent pregnancy loss. I’m high risk and have a history of developing later term pregnancy complications (developed pre-eclampsia with my first and was admitted to the hospital for 2 weeks before inducing about a month early). I’ve had multiple appointments for scans already, will meet with MFM which is a long drive from where I live, and have already been told to expect increased monitoring as my pregnancy progresses (they’ve mentioned so far coming in daily once I reach a certain point for NSTs and potentially inducing at 34 weeks this time if I start to show signs of pre-eclampsia again).
I WFH and my company and has an unlimited PTO policy. I notified my manager of my pregnancy a couple of weeks ago after my last ultrasound came back healthy and he told me to just note things on the calendar. However, I remembered last year HR said I needed to do some additional things so I emailed them letting them know about my appointments coming up and that I’ll need to meet with MFM and asked if I could just put things on my calendar. They said no and asked for a meeting. The meeting was really supportive and told me they’ll handle the bulk of communication with my manager about my pregnancy and hopefully eventual maternity leave on my behalf, and that I need to have a bunch of forms filled out within 2 weeks for them to ensure they’re complying fully with the PWFA. I was surprised but overall left the meeting feeling a lot better because they seem to have a strong handle on maternity leave in general.
Fast forward to later that day and I’m being told by my manager that another team wants me to join them and I’ll be getting a call to talk about it. Essentially we got a big contract with the government and we can’t get paid until a person is in the role so that team wants me to accept and move asap. I don’t want this role at all, and told that group I’m pregnant since they didn’t know, and that I would refuse travel for many reasons including my blood clotting risk (I currently have no travel in my role, my husband commutes, and we have a kid that I take to pre-k and will need to drive to kindergarten so that also wouldn’t fit our lifestyle). They told me they wouldn’t make me travel but I’ve worked with this client before and they were awful, I’ve had previous issues being told this and then being pressured to do so, and I have a bad working relationship already with the director who would be over this role and don’t feel comfortable working for him either. I talked to my manager and his boss (based on his recommendation) to find out if this is just an opportunity or if it’s a situation where I don’t have a job if I don’t take the role, and during those conversations mentioned I had talked with HR and have documents I need to return soon.
They both got really weird and said they weren’t sure why I notified HR. I told them HR said it was a requirement for them to make sure they were complying with various pregnancy related laws and unlimited PTO can’t be used as a blanket to cover everything. It almost felt like they thought I was using it avoid this other role, but I’d already noticed HR earlier in the week and met with them before I ever found out about this role so that doesn’t make any sense. I’m not on any performance reviews nor have had any negative feedback and they’re trying to push me into what would be considered a promotion of sorts, so it’s not like I’ve done anything wrong aside from now telling them I don’t want the job. The only thing I was told was there has no direction to eliminate my current role, but they’re worried sales hasn’t been selling contracts for my specific tasks and that the company could decide I’m redundant later.
Is this normal for managers to be upset I notified HR? We didn’t have any maternity leave policies or anything in place really at all when I had my first, but my manager then had been supportive of whatever I needed and didn’t care who I told. I left with a weird feeling I can’t quite place, but I also know this other role situation is super stressful to me and I’m trying to keep each one sorted out.
Jobadvisor
Your situation sounds stressful, and I want to give you a clear-headed read on it.
On the HR notification question: No, it's not normal for managers to be upset about this — and honestly, their reaction is a bit of a red flag. You did exactly the right thing. HR themselves told you there were additional steps required under the PWFA (Pregnant Workers Fairness Act), so you weren't just being cautious, you were following a legal compliance process your company initiated. The fact that your managers seemed bothered by it suggests they may not fully understand (or may be uncomfortable with) how pregnancy protections work now, especially since the PWFA is relatively new (2023) and has expanded protections beyond what existed when you had your first child.
The timing coincidence is suspicious-looking but also explainable: You're right that the sequence makes their theory fall apart — you contacted HR before you knew about the role. The weirdness you felt was probably them realizing, mid-conversation, that this could look bad for them. They may have been caught off guard that there's now a paper trail with HR while they're trying to pressure you into a role you've declined.
A few things worth keeping in mind:
The "your role might be eliminated for redundancy" comment is worth noting mentally. That's a vague pressure point, and combined with the push toward an unwanted role right after your pregnancy disclosure, it's a pattern that could raise concerns later if anything does happen to your position. You don't need to act on that now, but document everything — dates, who said what, the sequence of events.
The fact that HR is already involved, has initiated formal PWFA paperwork, and said they'll handle communications on your behalf is actually quite protective for you. That's not nothing.
On the role itself: Declining a role you don't want, especially one with a difficult director and a history of pressure around travel you can't do for medical and family reasons, is entirely reasonable. You weren't on a PIP, you have no negative feedback — your instincts to keep these two situations separate in your mind are correct.
The weird feeling you left with makes sense. It doesn't necessarily mean anything illegal happened, but it does mean you're wise to stay alert and keep HR in the loop going forward.
"If You End Tipping No One Will Do the Work" is totally bogus
We went to a concert in Portland, Oregon. We decided to have a pre-concert meal at a restaurant we have not been to for a few years. It is a well regarded restaurant, and has been in business for 12 years, which in the restaurant industry says something. Since I do not like surprises, I always look at online menus before I go. For this restaurant I noted the following:
“We are proud to replace tipping with a 22% service fee in order to provide a base wage of $25 per hour and free healthcare for all employees.”
First, I dislike any fees added on to a listed price. I wish they would just increase the price, but the menu was fairly priced for a restaurant of this caliber, and I did know about the service fee in advance, I did want to go. and agreed – no surprises. Also, the fact that Oregon has no sales tax cushions things a bit, and makes dining out a bit more tolerable.
What did I discover? This restaurant ran like a well-oiled machine. We were seated promptly, and waiter explained specials, asked if we had been there before, and went over menu. He took our drink order, and brought our drinks promptly, and then took our food order. A different person brought the plates, and we asked if we could get our waiter back for another round of drinks. She said “I can take care of that for you.” Empty plates were taken away promptly by others. Our original waiter came back, and gave us desert recommendations. At the end, the manager brought our check. I gave my credit card and he went away.
I thought at this point I thought they would bring back my receipt, with the line for additional tip, or try to guilt you for an additional tip. They did bring back my receipt and merely said “here is your receipt sir.” The meal cost plus the 22% service fee, and done.
What is my opinion of this experience? I think the service fee is for optics – a $16.50 menu item “looks” less than a $20 item, although I do wish it was all-in pricing. However the argument others make that says “if you take away tips, people would not want to do the work” I feel is bogus. This staff was paid a living wage plus health insurance, and I was totally impressed with their professionalism – they functioned as one team; they did not have to worry about fawning over a table to see if they could get a tip, whether they got a bad “no-tip” table, whether they had to share their tips with others like tipping out the kitchen staff, or if someone made more that evening than they did. They did not have to worry about “having a good night with tips” to pay rent for the month. It was one team working together doing their jobs in a professional manner to deliver a great restaurant experience.
Jobadvisor
It sounds like you stumbled upon the "holy grail" of modern dining: a place where the service is excellent not because of the carrot of a potential tip, but because of the foundation of a stable job.
Your experience in Portland highlights a major shift in the industry. The argument that "no one will work without tips" often ignores the psychological benefit of predictability. When a server knows they are making $25/hour regardless of whether a table is grumpy or generous, their stress levels drop, and they can focus on the actual craft of hospitality.
Why the "Well-Oiled Machine" Happens
In a traditional tipping model, servers are often "islands." They protect their tables because that is their direct income source. In the model you experienced, the incentives shift:
Team Dynamics: Since there’s no "my tip" vs. "your tip," staff are more likely to help each other. As you saw, the person clearing plates was happy to take a drink order because the goal is the success of the restaurant, not just a single transaction.
Professionalism over Performance: Without the need to "fawn" for a tip, the service becomes more authentic. It moves from a "hustle" to a professional standard.
Kitchen Parity: Usually, the "Back of House" (cooks/dishwashers) gets left out of the tipping windfall. A flat service fee often allows the restaurant to pay the kitchen staff significantly better, reducing turnover and keeping the food quality consistent.
The "Optics" Problem
You hit the nail on the head regarding the 22% fee versus just raising menu prices. While it feels like "fine print," restaurants do this for two main reasons:
Price Psychology: As you noted, $16.50 looks much better than $20.00 on a menu. In a competitive market, a restaurant that includes all costs in the price might look "expensive" compared to the place next door, even if the final bill is identical.
Tax and Legal Clarity: In many jurisdictions, a "service charge" is legally distinct from "menu price," which can affect how the business handles payroll taxes and benefit allocations.
The Verdict
The "No Tip" model works when the "Base Wage" is actually a Living Wage. $25/hour plus health insurance in a city like Portland is a respectable professional salary. It turns a "gig" into a "career," and as you saw, that pride shows up in the service.
It’s refreshing to hear about an experience where the "guilt-trip" line on the receipt was finally absent. It sounds like you didn't just pay for a meal; you paid for the peace of mind that the person serving you wasn't struggling to pay their rent that night.