California law requires employers to provide a 30-minute meal period for every five hours worked.  This means that an employee who works more than five hours is entitled to one 30-minute meal break, and an employee who works more than 10 hours is entitled to two 30-minute meal breaks.  Meal breaks are unpaid, and the employee must be relieved of all duty and allowed to leave the premises.  When an employee is not provided with a legally-compliant meal period – whether it was missed entirely, shorter than 30 minutes, or provided too late in the shift – the employee is entitled to a penalty payment of one hour of pay.

Many employers round employee time punches to the nearest 10- or 15-minute increments.  For example, if an employee clocks out for lunch at 12:00 p.m., and clocks back in at 12:23, the timekeeping software will round the meal break up from 23 minutes up to 30 minutes.  The meal break will appear compliant with California law, even though the employee received less than the required 30 minutes for lunch.

On February 25, the California Supreme Court ruled that employers are not permitted to round an employee’s time punches for purposes of recording meal breaks.  The Court handed down the ruling in a class action case brought by nurse recruiters who work for AMN Services LLC, a healthcare staffing company. In the opinion, the Court said that California law requires precise timekeeping for meal breaks and that subtracting even a few minutes is contrary to the important health and safety reasons for providing breaks, such as reducing stress, reducing workplace accidents and enabling employees to take care of important personal tasks.

Writing for the majority, Justice Liu wrote: “Within a 30-minute timeframe, a few minutes can make a significant difference when it comes to eating an unhurried meal, scheduling a doctor’s appointment, giving instructions to a babysitter, refreshing oneself with a cup of coffee or simply resting before going back to work.”  The Court further ruled that if the employer’s records show a meal break violation – i.e., a missed, short or late meal – this creates a presumption that the employee is entitled to penalty pay.  To avoid liability, the employer must rebut the presumption by showing that the employer was provided the opportunity to take the break and chose not to take it.

If you believe you have been subject to wage-and-hour violations at work, including missed meal or rest breaks, contact Teukolsky Law today for a consultation. 

LA Country District Attorney George Gascon has issued a statement in support of workers following a suit filed by Teukolsky Law against the legendary Chateau Marmont hotel.

District Attorney Gascón stated: “I am aware of the civil lawsuit and allegations made regarding the Chateau Marmont Hotel. Workers can often feel powerless when dealing with hostile workplaces, dangerous work conditions, and wage theft. I am committed to protecting workers in Los Angeles County.”

Gascon’s statement references the lawsuit filed on January 27 by former employee and plaintiff Thomasina Gross. The lawsuit alleges that Ms. Gross, who is African-American, was repeatedly passed over for promotions and work assignments in favor of white candidates and colleagues. The suit also alleges that Ms. Gross faced unwanted touching from guests as she served them, and that management did not help when she attempted to report this conduct.

Gascon, who has been in office since December, campaigned on a progressive platform of reforming the DA’s office. His statement follows actress and activist Jane Fonda’s pledge to boycott the Chateau Marmont until it has addressed the workers’ concerns.
​
The Hollywood Reporter wrote an article about Gascon’s statement, which can be found here.

If you believe you have experienced racial discrimination or sexual harassment at work, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

As Prop 22 goes into effect in California, workers and unions are already fighting back against the measure, which was largely propped up by tech giants’ $200 million “Yes on 22” campaign.

Several drivers and SEIU filed a petition in California Supreme Court on January 12, 2021 seeking to overturn the new ballot measure, which aims to permanently classify gig workers as independent contractors instead of employees. The drivers and union allege that Prop 22 violates California’s constitution and are asking the Court to invalidate the new law, arguing that Prop 22 makes it too difficult for state legislators to implement workers’ compensation. On February 3, the Court declined to hear the suit 5-2. However, the Court said the case could be refiled in a lower court. On February 11, the drivers and union filed a similar suit in Alameda County Superior Court.

Prop 22’s destructive effects are being felt by workers statewide. The Knock LA reported last month that Vons, Pavilions, and other stores owned by Albertsons Companies in California plan to fire grocery delivery drivers later this month and will shift to a third-party delivery service that uses independent contractors. Drivers working for Albertsons Companies are currently classified as employees; the company’s Bay Area drivers are unionized and will not be affected by the change, but delivery drivers in Southern California not protected by a union lack the power to fight back against this move by the grocery stores.
​
If you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor instead of an employee, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

The Los Angeles Times has written an article covering Teukolsky Law's most recent lawsuit today.  The article is entitled, "Chateau Marmont gave coveted jobs mostly to white people, lawsuit alleges," and describes how the plaintiff, Thomasina "Thommi" Gross, who is African-American, was repeatedly passed over for promotion in favor of white candidates.  The lawsuit also alleges that Ms. Gross faced constant unwanted touching from guests as she served them food and drink, and that management did not help when she reported their inappropriate conduct. 

From the article: "The lawsuit doesn’t address how much money Gross is seeking, but her attorney, Lauren Teukolsky, said she would be asking for compensation for the loss of the higher salary she would have received had she had been rightly promoted, plus punitive damages."

At a press conference on January 28, 2021, Lauren Teukolsky announced the filing of a new lawsuit against Chateau Marmont on behalf of former employee Thomasina "Thommi" Gross. Chateau Marmont is a legendary Hollywood hotel known as a playground for its wealthy clientele. Ms. Gross, who is African-American, worked as an events server there from 2017 to 2020, until she was laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The complaint, which was filed on January 27 in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges that Ms. Gross was repeatedly passed over for promotions in favor of white employees. Ms. Gross, who had over a decade of experience in high-end hotel hospitality, received far less compensation and fewer hours than her white counterparts. This was consistent, says the complaint, with the Chateau’s discriminatory preference for placing white or light-skinned people of color in guest-facing roles.

The suit also alleges that due to the Chateau’s “anything goes” party environment, guests felt free to touch and grope Ms. Gross as she served food during events. When Ms. Gross reported guest misconduct to management, the complaint alleges, they took no steps to protect her, and even retaliated by not giving her any more restaurant shifts.

Ms. Teukolsky said: “Ms. Gross has demonstrated tremendous courage by stepping forward to challenge the discriminatory practices of one of the most iconic Hollywood institutions. We hope that her bravery will lead the Chateau to take steps to protect its employees from guest harassment and to ensure that its hiring practices going forward comply with California’s powerful anti-discrimination laws.”

In an article published on January 28 in the Hollywood Reporter, Ms. Gross commented: “I don’t like having to leave my dignity at the door. It’s exhausting. We’re forced into a fight-or-flight mode. We’re conditioned to believe we have to expect this. I’m speaking out on behalf of myself and others who believe they’ll face retaliation. Changing the culture is my focus. No one should have to deal with this on a day-to-day basis.”

If you believe you have experienced racial discrimination or sexual harassment at work, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

On October 15, 2020, Lauren Teukolsky spoke at a press conference announcing a new class action lawsuit filed by Teukolsky Law against HMS Host, the largest operator of airport concessions in North America and at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). HMS Host laid off almost 1,000 LAX workers in March and April 2020, including named plaintiffs Plaintiffs Debra Lewis, Marlene Mendoza and Lotus Perez-Silva, who each worked for HMS Host at LAX for more than 30 years, most recently as servers in Point the Way Café by Golden Road and Campanile, two LAX concessions operated by HMS Host.

The lawsuit alleges that HMS Host failed to pay its laid-off workers wages they are owed under the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance. The lawsuit also alleges that Host failed to comply with California's "timely payment provisions" by waiting over six months to send laid-off workers their final paychecks for accrued vacation time. 

Law360, which covered the filing of the lawsuit, quotes Ms. Teukolsky as saying "that the workers have struggled because of the layoffs. 'The workers by and large have not been able to find other employment. Many of them have had to go on to unemployment benefits, and for many of our clients, they are having to make really hard decisions between paying rent, paying medical bills, getting groceries,' she said."

On October 21, 2020, the week after the lawsuit was filed, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted down a relief and lease extension package that HMS Host was seeking, estimated to be worth tens of millions in lease extension-related revenue and rent relief for HMS Host.

If you have been laid off and have questions about whether your employer paid you all of the wages you were owed, contact us today for a free consultation.

One of the propositions on the ballot on November 3, Proposition 22, could have major implications for the future of AB 5 enforcement in California. If passed, the proposition would allow gig-economy companies like Uber, Lyft, and Instacart to classify their drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. These companies would be exempt from AB5, the new California law that requires most employers to classify their workers as employees.  Courts have consistently ruled that Uber and Lyft have violated AB5 by refusing to reclassify their drivers as employees since AB5 went into effect on January 1, 2020. As recently as October 22, 2020, a California appeals court ruled that Uber and Lyft must reclassify their drivers as employees rather than independent contractors. 

If Prop. 22 passes, Uber and Lyft would not need to comply with these court rulings.  As independent contractors, their drivers would not receive many of the benefits and protections of the employment relationship, like minimum wage protections, paid sick leave, workers' compensation benefits if they are injured or unemployment benefits in they become unemployed.

Backers of Prop. 22, including Uber, Lyft, Instacart, Postmates (owned by Uber) and DoorDash, have poured more than $187.5 million into backing the bill, making it the most expensive proposition in California history and dwarfing the $15 million raised by the opposition, spearheaded by labor groups who have traditionally represented the interests of working people over corporate interests. Prop. 22 would not only apply to Lyft and Uber drivers, but would cover all drivers who work for a "delivery network company," potentially including FedEx, Amazon, Walmart, UPS, and any other companies that makes deliveries in California.  

If passed, Prop. 22 would set a dangerous precedent in California.  Companies who don't like laws that the Legislature passes, and who don't like court rulings requiring them to treat their workers fairly, could simply open their coffers -- filled with the profits they earn by not spending money on employee benefits -- and buy themselves a ballot proposition. Significantly, Prop. 22 contains a provision stating that it cannot be amended except by a 7/8 majority of the Legislature, effectively tying lawmakers' hands for the rest of eternity absent a new ballot proposition.  California voters should reject this company-sponsored initiative and let the California Legislature do its job to govern in the interests of the people. 

If you think you have been misclassified as an independent contractor, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

On Wednesday, September 30, Governor Newsom finished out the legislative season by signing a flurry of legislation, including several that benefit employees. The bills are as follows:

1. AB 1947 is a huge win for employees. It authorizes employees who successfully bring whistleblower retaliation claims against their employers under California Labor Code section 1102.5 to recover attorneys' fees from the employer.  Previously, whistleblowing employees had to bear their own attorneys' fees, even if they won their case. Employee-rights groups have been fighting long and hard for this fee provision, which Governor Newsom vetoed in 2019.  AB 1947 also extends the time for employees to file retaliation complaints under Labor Code 98.7 with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) from six to 12 months.
2. SB 1383 expands the coverage of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), which allows employees to take unpaid time off work to care for themselves or a family member. Employers cannot fire employees for taking family leave.  Starting in January 2021, SB 1383 will significantly broaden coverage by extending job-protected leave to businesses with 5 or more employees, and by extending the list of relatives one can care for to include siblings, grandparents and grandchildren.
3. SB 973 requires private employers with 100 or more employees to submit an annual report to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (FEHA) detailing their pay data. The data would include information about the number of employees by sex, race, and ethnicity at all levels of the organization using the same categories that are employed in collecting demographic information for the federal government. The Legislature’s intent in ratifying the bill is to increase enforcement of equal pay and discrimination laws by requiring employers to be transparent with their pay data.  
   
   If you have any questions about whistleblower retaliation, family leave or equal pay issues, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

A federal judge has ruled that Uber and Postmates failed to demonstrate that they were unconstitutionally targeted by AB 5, the new law that requires most California workers to be classified as employees rather than independent contractors.

The lawsuit, Lydia Olson et al v. State of California et al, alleged that AB 5 violated the equal protection clause because it targeted workers of app-based companies like Uber and Postmates, while exempting numerous other types of workers like hairdressers and real estate agents.

In her ruling, issued September 18, 2020, U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee rejected this claim, finding that lawmakers were attempting to address the rampant misclassification of employees and to ensure that workers received the "basic rights and protections they deserve under the law, the attendant problems, such as a lack paid sick leave,  including a minimum wage, workers’ compensation if they are injured on the job, unemployment insurance, paid sick leave, and paid family leave."

Judge Gee ruled that Uber and Postmates did not prove that app-based companies were targeted because of animus, reasoning that AB5 maintains the traditional exemption of workers who have long been considered independent contractors under California law. 

Earlier this month, the California Legislature revised AB 5 to exempt several more businesses from the classification test and to increase the state’s ability to enforce the law. Meanwhile, Uber, Lyft and other app-based companies have poured millions of dollars into Prop 22, a measure on the November ballot that would exempt their drivers from AB5 and classify them as independent contractors. 

If you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor instead of an employee, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation. 

On Thursday, Governor Newsom signed three more bills to protect California’s workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. California is already considered one of the most worker-friendly states to work during the pandemic, according to a recent Oxfam report which looks at measures like the amount of mandated paid leave and protection against forced return to work.

SB 1159 by Senator Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo) makes it easier for employees infected with COVID-19 to claim workers' compensation benefits. The law creates a rebuttable presumption that certain employees contracted the virus at work, thereby making them eligible for benefits.

AB 685 by Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes (D-San Bernardino) requires businesses to inform their employees in writing within one business day if the business receives notice of a potential COVID  exposure at the workplace. Under the new bill, CalOSHA is allowed to determine if certain workplaces are imminently hazardous enough to prevent certain operations and processes. Cal OSHA is also now authorized to issue citations for coronavirus violations without needing to follow the usual pre-citation requirements.

SB 1383 (19R) by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) expands the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). Starting in January 2021, SB 1383 will broaden coverage by extending job-protected leave to businesses with 5 or more employees, and by extending the list of relatives one can care for to include siblings, grandparents and grandchildren.
​
If you think you been denied family leave or have concerns about workplace safety, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.