Several cities spanning southern California have enacted minimum wage increases effective July 1, 2025. While the state’s minimum wage is set at $16.50, many local jurisdictions have enacted higher minimum wages in response to the increased cost of living in the state. According to the Living Wage Calculator from MIT, an individual would need to earn at least $27.81 an hour working full-time to cover basic necessities while living in Los Angeles County by themselves. On July 1, 2025, the minimum wage rate per hour for the city of Los Angeles will be set at just $17.87. 

The City of Los Angeles has also implemented industry-specific minimum wage increases. On May 27, 2025, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass signed an ordinance dubbed the Olympic Wage. The ordinance establishes a $22.50 minimum wage increase for airport and hotel workers effective July 1, 2025, and sets a path for a $30 minimum wage by the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The ordinance encountered pushback from business groups. A coalition of airline, hotel, and concession companies are circulating a petition to force a citywide vote on the ordinance. They argue that the increasing the minimum wage hurts small businesses in the tourism industry who will be forced to lay off workers. To successfully force a citywide referendum, the petition needs about 93,000 signatures within 30 days to be placed on the ballot in an upcoming election.

Some labor unions have launched a “Defend the Wage LA” campaign to defend the ordinance. UNITE HERE Local 11, a union representing hotel and restaurant workers, lobbied for the passage of the minimum wage ordinance. Their represented workers rallied on June 4, 2025, at Los Angeles City Hall to oppose the referendum and urging voters to not sign the petition. The union issued a news release stating:

“Rather than paying workers what they deserve, the industry which has already spent over 1 million dollars to stop their workers from earning a livable wage, is expected to spend millions more on this referendum”
​
For more on the latest developments in employment law, visit our blog here. If you believe your employer may have violated workplace laws, click here to get in touch with our office.

In a June 4th article, the LA Times reported on a lawsuit brought by marketing executive, Chad Bustos, against his former employer, Terranea Resort. Teukolsky Law filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on June 4, 2025, alleging that Terranea’s President, Ralph Grippo, retaliated against Bustos.

Bustos led an all-female marketing team, including some new and expectant mothers. He alleges that he was illegally fired for defending his female employees from Grippo’s discriminatory, anti-pregnancy comments and actions.

The lawsuit details a February 2024 meeting in which Grippo allegedly became enraged after learning that one of his employees was planning to take maternity leave. Another female marketing team member returned from maternity leave weeks prior to this February meeting. Grippo allegedly interrogated each female employee, demanding to know if they were pregnant.

After the meeting, Grippo allegedly began treating the marketing team harshly by implementing strict attendance requirements and using the resort’s camera to monitor their movements.

According to the complaint, Grippo wanted to discipline the team and tried to force Bustos into complying. Bustos pleaded for more flexibility for the young mothers on his all-female team, noting that Terranea could be opening itself up to a lawsuit. Grippo is alleged to have terminated Bustos in retaliation for not complying with his directives to write up the females on his team.

Teukolsky Law has filed previous lawsuits against Terranea and its parent company, JC Resorts. Teukolsky Law has filed a wage-and-hour lawsuit that settled for $2.15 million in 2019, a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of four young women which settled in 2024 for an undisclosed amount, and a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of Sandra Pezqueda. Pezqueda was named a Time Magazine’s Person of the Year as one of the “silence breakers” who spoke out against the sexual harassment they’ve experienced.

To read the LA Times article, click here. To read the Bustos v Terranea complaint, click here. If you believe you have faced sexual assault or harassment at work, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

Earlier today, Teukolsky Law filed a new lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Chad Bustos, a 61-year old former executive at the Terranea luxury resort. The lawsuit alleges Bustos was fired for opposing anti-pregnancy remarks made by Terranea’s president, Ralph Grippo, and for protecting the rights of young working mothers he supervised. Grippo recruited Bustos to be Terranea’s Chief Marketing Officer in 2023. The two previously worked together for 11 years. Bustos supervised an all-female marketing team, three of whom were young moms with kids under the age of three.

The lawsuit alleges that during a meeting in February 2024, Grippo became enraged upon learning one woman on the team planned to go out on maternity leave shortly after another had just returned from maternity leave. He allegedly pushed his chair back, stood up, and aggressively interrogated each woman in the room, demanding to know if they were pregnant. He allegedly pointed to each woman in turn, asked “Are you pregnant,” and waited for her to respond. Under California law, it is illegal for employers to ask employees about medical conditions, including pregnancy. Courts have previously found that anti-pregnancy comments are evidence of sex discrimination.

When Bustos confronted Grippo and told him his anti-pregnancy remarks were inappropriate, the lawsuit alleges Grippo doubled down, telling Bustos, “I can ask people whatever I want, I can ask what they had for dinner, I can ask if they are pregnant.”  Even though the women complained to Human Resources, Grippo allegedly has yet to apologize for his unlawful conduct. It is unclear whether Terranea has taken any disciplinary action against Grippo, who remains President to this day.

The lawsuit alleges that after Grippo’s anti-pregnancy tirade, Grippo started treating the all-female marketing team harshly, demanding they arrive at work by 8AM and leave no earlier than 6PM, in addition to working holidays and weekends. Grippo allegedly told the women that if they did not want to work these hours, they “should go work for a Marriott.”

Believing Grippo’s demands were retaliatory, Bustos pleaded with Grippo to give the young moms on his team some flexibility because they were responsible for dropping off and picking up their young kids from daycare. Grippo allegedly refused. According to the lawsuit, he started monitoring Terranea’s security cameras to see when the women were coming and going. He allegedly demanded Bustos discipline two of the young moms who arrived after 8AM and left before 6PM for childcare reasons. Bustos refused, telling Grippo that his retaliatory conduct would lead to the company “being sued.”

In early August 2024, Grippo allegedly tried to force Bustos to resign. Bustos allegedly told Grippo he would not resign and again asked Grippo to refrain from “targeting” his team.  The lawsuit alleges Grippo responded by firing Bustos on August 28, 2024. Grippo’s alleged retaliation continued: he later allegedly refused to promote the woman who reported his anti-pregnancy tirade to Human Resources, saying she had “attacked” him by reporting him to HR and “would ‘have to prove she was sorry for doing that to him’ before he would promote her.”

Bustos’s complaint alleges claims for wrongful termination and failure to prevent and correct discriminatory and retaliatory conduct. Ms. Teukolsky has filed previous lawsuits against Terranea and JC Resorts, including a wage-and-hour lawsuit that settled for $2.15 million in 2019, a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of four young women which settled in 2024 for an undisclosed amount, and a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of Sandra Pezqueda. Ms. Pezqueda was named a TIME Magazine Person of the Year as one of the “silence breakers” who spoke out about the sexual harassment she allegedly experienced while working as a dishwasher at Terranea.

“Chad Bustos is a true ally,” said Ms. Teukolsky. “He stood up for the rights of pregnant women and working mothers and was fired. No one should have to choose between motherhood and a job. We look forward to holding Terranea accountable for its actions.”

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a May 9 Bloomberg Law article on the growing split among federal district courts over how to interpret the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (EFAA). The 2022 law protects workers alleging sexual harassment or assault from mandatory arbitration agreements. More employers are requiring their employees to submit to forced arbitration proceedings as a condition of employment. Yet, mandatory arbitration is often described as a discriminatory one-sided process favoring employers. EFAA solves this problem by voiding arbitration agreements allowing employees to pursue their sexual harassment claims in court.

The debate among district courts is centered on the pleading standard required for the law to apply. Either workers must plead “plausible” claims that are supported by detailed factual allegations or simply a lower standard of “non-frivolous” claims. Employers maintain that the higher threshold of “plausibility” for pleadings stops employees from bringing false or meritless claims to court. Some plaintiff-side lawyers have argued that employers are raising an improper defense by challenging the sufficiency of a worker’s pleadings when the real focus should be on the question of arbitration.
​
Bloomberg Law quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying that motions to dismiss or strike a claim are the proper “procedural mechanisms that defendants are supposed to use if they think that the allegations of a complaint are insufficient.”  

Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including sexual assault and harassment cases. Her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Daily Journal, Law360, Law.com, and the Los Angeles Times.
​
To read the Bloomberg Law article, click here. If you believe you have faced sexual assault or harassment at work, or have questions about arbitration, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in an April 24 Bloomberg Law article on a string of appellate court rulings interpreting a 2022 law that exempts sexual harassment and assault claims from arbitration. President Biden signed the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (EFAA) into law on March 3, 2022, in response to the #MeToo movement. The law permits workers alleging a sexual assault or harassment dispute to keep their case in court, voiding any mandatory arbitration agreements. A growing number of employers have required workers to sign forced arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, pushing them into a discriminatory one-sided process.
​
Employers have fought to limit the EFAA’s applicability and scope, but courts have largely issued pro-employee rulings that keep a broad swath of claims out of arbitration.

For example, the Sixth Circuit recently ruled that workers may avoid arbitration for sexual misconduct occurring before EFAA’s effective date of March 3, 2022 if they filed a lawsuit after that date. This ruling follows pro-employee decisions in the Second, Third, and Eighth Circuits.

Bloomberg Law quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying, “Courts are defining the terms of the Act in an employee-friendly way to keep sexual harassment and assault claims out of arbitration.”

Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including sexual assault and harassment cases. Her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Daily Journal, Law360, Law.com, and the Los Angeles Times.

These appellate decisions represent victories for workers who have suffered from sexual assault and harassment. To read the Bloomberg Law article, click here. If you believe you have faced sexual assault or harassment at work, or have questions about arbitration, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in an April 18 Daily Journal article on the California Supreme Court’s grant of review in Leeper v Shipt. The case involves the legality of so-called “headless” PAGA cases in which the plaintiff disclaims all individual relief and asserts only claims on behalf of other aggrieved employees. The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) deputizes employees to bring a lawsuit to enforce the Labor Code on behalf of the state. Plaintiffs are using the “headless” PAGA tactic in an effort to avoid forced arbitration: while employers often seek to compel individual PAGA claims to arbitration, they typically want the claim on behalf of others to remain in court. If headless cases are permitted, plaintiffs can avoid arbitration altogether.

Recent court rulings have put this strategy into question. In Leeper, the intermediate appellate court held that a PAGA claim necessarily includes an individual claim. If the Supreme Court affirms Leeper, PAGA plaintiffs will no longer be permitted to bring headless PAGA cases to avoid arbitration. On April 22, the California Court of Appeal issued another decision holding that headless PAGA cases are not permitted, relying on Leeper.

Two other Court of Appeal decisions hold that headless PAGA cases are permitted, demonstrating the deepening split on this issue among California’s judges. In one of those cases, Rogriguez v Packers Sanitation, a petition for review is currently pending before the Supreme Court. Given the overlap of issues, the Court will likely grant review.

Interestingly, neither party in Leeper asked the Supreme Court for review. Instead, the Court granted review on its own motion, and deemed the plaintiff the appealing party. The Court certified two questions on appeal to be briefed and argued. First, does every PAGA claim include individual and non-individual claims regardless of what the complaint actually alleges? Second, can a plaintiff choose to only bring representative PAGA claims?
​
The Daily Journal quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying, “It's going to be the next big PAGA case before the state Supreme Court.” Earlier this year, Ms. Teukolsky predicted the California Supreme Court would weigh in to clarify this issue given the confusion in the lower courts. 

California lawmakers have introduced several labor bills for the 2025-2026 legislative session. Here is a breakdown of three significant bills:

S.B. 642 would amend the California Equal Pay Act to require employers to provide a more precise pay scale in job postings. The pay range must be within 10% above or below the mean pay rate for the position. By narrowing the pay range, the bill prevents employers from posting excessively wide salary estimates that could obscure actual pay disparities. Additionally, the bill adopts gender-neutral language to describe discriminatory compensation in violation of the Equal Pay Act.

A.B. 962 would prohibit employers from requiring employees to repay training or educational expenses if they choose to leave the job. These "stay-or-pay" contracts often impose financial penalties on low-income workers seeking better opportunities, effectively trapping them in their current positions limiting their mobility and ability to improve their working conditions.

S.B. 590 would extend eligibility for paid family leave to include care for a "designated person," defined as any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is equivalent to a family relationship. Employees can identify this person when filing a claim for benefits. By broadening the definition of family, the bill ensures that more workers can take time off to care for loved ones promoting inclusivity and overall well-being.

These proposed bills reflect California's commitment to a fairer work environment. Workers benefit from greater pay transparency, protection from exploitative contracts, and expanded leave options, while employers are encouraged to adopt more equitable and inclusive policies.​
​
For more on the latest developments in employment law, visit our blog here. If you believe your employer may have violated workplace laws, click here to get in touch with our office.

Several unions are suing to stop President Trump’s attempt to end labor unions at federal agencies. On March 27, 2025, Trump signed an executive order stripping union protections in 18 agencies. The executive order relies on a federal civil service law that gives the president authority to prohibit unionization at national security agencies.
​
President Trump has relied on a national security justification to enact other keys parts of his agenda from accelerating deportations to mass layoffs of federal employees.  Several unions are challenging Trump’s actions. On March 31, 2025, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) filed a lawsuit arguing Trump’s true goal is to radically reduce the size of the federal government and  remove “disloyal” civil servants. On April 4, 2025, several unions led by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) filed a similar lawsuit. The AFGE, representing 820,000 federal employees, alleges the government violated the First Amendment by retaliating against workers who have expressed opposition to Trump.

The unions support their claims by pointing to the White House’s fact sheet released alongside Trump’s executive order, which openly states that “[c]ertain Federal unions have declared war on President Trump’s agenda.” Trump frequently clashes with agency heads he nominated in his first Presidency – a mistake he does not want to repeat. Fealty to Trump has effectively become a prerequisite to working in the White House, endangering civil servant protections and free speech.

The civil servant system which governs the hiring and firing of hundreds of thousands of federal workers is meant to be non-partisan. Government employees can be removed from their jobs only for cause and must be notified in advance with the opportunity to respond and appeal. The NTEU and AFGE lawsuits are test cases for whether Trump will be permitted to skirt these requirements. 

Lauren Teukolsky was recently quoted in a Law 360 article about an ongoing legal challenge to California Assembly Bill 5 (A.B. 5). A.B. 5 requires all workers to be classified as employees, not independent contractors, unless they meet the criteria of a three-pronged test. Employers have brought multiple challenges to the law on free speech, equal protection, and preemption grounds. The latest challenge to the law comes from the trucking industry in a bid to avoid classifying motor carriers as employees.

Ms. Teukolsky explains that employee classification requires employers to provide protection and benefits like overtime pay, minimum wage, workers compensation, and unemployment insurance.

The Law 360 article quoted Ms. Teukolsky, who said: “Companies save a lot of money by misclassifying their workers as independent contractors, so it does not surprise me to see that companies are bringing every type of challenge they can to A.B. 5. It just shows you how important the law is in providing these really essential worker protections."

Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including in employee misclassification cases. Her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Bloomberg Law, Law360, Law.com, and the Los Angeles Times.
​
To read the Law 360 article, click here. If you believe you’ve been treated unlawfully in the workplace and want to get in touch with our office, click here.

Every year, we get calls from hundreds of employees seeking legal representation.  We take only a small number of cases each year. So, what can employees do to increase their chances of getting an attorney to represent them? Here are the top five mistakes employees make when seeking an attorney:

1.  Not having a clear timeline.
When you contact a law firm for representation, you will be asked: What happened? Preparing a written timeline with dates setting out the most important events will make it far easier for the attorney to assess whether you have a valid claim. If you send it to the attorney in advance of your call, even better.  But don’t make the timeline a 10-page single-spaced manifesto. Keep it short (think bullet points) and objective.  You should include dates you were hired, fired, had performance evaluations, attended key meetings, or experienced key incidents, such as acts of harassment or discrimination.

2.  Not requesting a personnel file.
In California, current and former employees are entitled to a copy of their personnel file and all documents they signed in connection with their employment.  There are no magic words.  You just need to send an email to your supervisor or someone in Human Resources and say something like, “Please provide me with a copy of my personnel file and all documents I signed in connection with my employment.” The employer has 30 days to provide it.

3.  Not having organized documents.
Lawyers love documents, and for good reason.  Documents can make or break a case.  Documents include work emails, Slack messages, text messages or anything else in writing that might help prove your case. A lot of people think text messages “don’t count” as evidence, but they definitely do. You will immediately lose access to company emails and messaging systems as soon as you are terminated, so plan ahead and save what you need. Back up texts to the cloud. Try to organize the documents chronologically so the attorney can easily review them in order.

4.  Not having a witness list.
It’s hard to win a lawsuit based on your testimony alone.  Most lawyers will want to know if you have any witnesses who can corroborate any aspect of your case. Coworkers who no longer work for the employer often make the best witnesses because they don’t fear retaliation for speaking up. But witnesses can also include friends and family members you told about the unlawful conduct, or who can testify to your emotional distress. Make a concise witness list with the witness’s name, non-work email address, phone number, and a brief sentence or two about what they can corroborate.
​
5.  Being rude to staff.
Lawyers like to work with nice people.  Rudeness to staff is a sign that you are going to be a difficult client. Be courteous to the staff who answer phones and conduct intake interviews.