The employees, who are backed by the union organizing Starbucks’ workers, filed class-action lawsuits in state court in Illinois and Colorado. Workers also filed complaints with California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency. If the agency decides not to seek penalties against Starbucks, the workers intend to file a class-action lawsuit in California, according to the complaints.

Starbucks didn’t comment directly on the lawsuits Wednesday, but the company said it simplified its dress code to deliver a more consistent experience to customers and give its employees clearer guidance.

“As part of this change, and to ensure out partners were prepared, partners received two shirts at no cost,” the company said Wednesday. Starbucks refers to its employees as “partners.”

Starbucks’ new dress code went into effect on May 12. It requires all workers in North America to wear a solid black shirt with short or long sleeves under their green aprons. Shirts may or may not have collars, but they must cover the midriff and armpits.

Employees must wear khaki, black or blue denim bottoms without patterns or frayed hems or solid black dresses that are not more than 4 inches above the knee. The dress code also requires workers to wear black, gray, dark blue, brown, tan or white shoes made from a waterproof material. Socks and hosiery must be “subdued,” the company said.

The dress code prohibits employees from having face tattoos or more than one facial piercing. Tongue piercings and “theatrical makeup” are also prohibited.

Starbucks said in April that the new dress code would make employees’ green aprons stand out and create a sense of familiarity for customers. It comes as the company is trying to reestablish a warmer, more welcoming experience in its stores.

Before the new dress code went into effect, Starbucks had a relatively lax policy. In 2016, it began allowing employees to wear patterned shirts in a wider variety of colors to give them more opportunities for self-expression.

The old dress code was also loosely enforced, according to the Colorado lawsuit. But under the new dress code, employees who don’t comply aren’t allowed to start their shifts.

Brooke Allen, a full-time student who also works at a Starbucks in Davis, California, said she was told by a manager in July that the Crocs she was wearing didn’t meet the new standards and she would have to wear different shoes if she wanted to work the following day. Allen had to go to three stores to find a compliant pair that cost her $60.09.

Allen has spent an additional $86.95 on clothes for work, including black shirts and jeans.

“I think it’s extremely tone deaf on the company’s part to expect their employees to completely redesign their wardrobe without any compensation,” Allen said. “A lot of us are already living paycheck to paycheck.”

Allen said she misses the old dress code, which allowed her to express herself with colorful shirts and three facial piercings.

“It looks sad now that everyone is wearing black,” she said.

The lawsuits and complaints filed Wednesday allege that Starbucks’ dress code violates state laws that require companies to reimburse workers for expenses that primarily benefit the employer. Colorado law also prohibits employers from imposing expenses on workers without their written consent, according to that lawsuit. The plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of all Starbucks workers in those states, whether or not their stores are unionized.

Multiple plaintiffs, like Allen, said they requested reimbursement from Starbucks to conform to the dress code but were denied. Gilbert Cruz, an employee in Aurora, Illinois, requested $10 for the cost of removing a nose piercing.

Worker-led lawsuits in state courts are a shift in tactics in the multi-year effort to unionize Starbucks’ stores.

Starbucks Workers United, the labor group that has unionized 640 of Starbucks’ 10,000 company-owned U.S. stores, has filed hundreds of unfair labor practice charges against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board. The union filed an charge over the dress code in April but it is not a party in the current lawsuits.

But the board’s ability to hear cases has been curtailed under President Donald Trump. Trump fired an NLRB member in the spring, leaving the board without the quorum it needs to decide cases.