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. 

President Donald Trump’s recent attacks on the National Relations Labor Board (NLRB) have disrupted the Board’s operations. The quasi-judicial body traditionally consists of five board members appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. But recently, partisan congressional gridlock in the Senate stalled replacements for two Board member vacancies. Since Trump assumed office on January 10, 2025, his directives and firings have forced the Board to further undergo a chaotic restructuring of its remaining three board members. 

On his first day in office, Trump appointed current member Marvin E. Kaplan to be the Board chairman, and later fired Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox. The NLRB needs at least three Board members to establish a quorum, but without Ms. Wilcox, the Board only has two members.

A growing concern is that Trump’s true intent is to paralyze the functioning of the NLRB. Without a quorum, the NLRB is unable to issue new decisions or respond to appeals, which benefits employers. Companies who receive adverse rulings from Administrative Law  Judge can simply appeal to the quorum-less NLRB. The Board is without power to review the charge, meaning it would remain in limbo indefinitely. Meanwhile, employers may simply continue business as usual.

Wilcox filed a lawsuit alleging her firing was unlawful. A federal judge agreed, ordering her reinstatement. But a federal appeals court stayed the order reinstating her, signaling it intends to rule in Trump’s favor.
​
It’s likely that the Supreme Court will weigh in on this issue. The case will test the Supreme Court’s willingness to reign in Trump’s power. The Supreme Court historically upheld job removal protections for agency officials under the 90-year-old precedent Humphrey’s Executor. The Court has recently started chipping away at the ruling but has yet to outright overrule the precedent. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump it could mean dramatic changes to almost all administrative agencies.