Teukolsky Law, A Professional Corporation
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • Practice Areas
  • Contact
  • Testimonials

Teukolsky Law Blog.

Teukolsky Law Files New CLass Action Lawsuit Against HMS Host On Behalf of Laid-Off LAX Workers

10/27/2020

0 Comments

 
Picture
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.

0 Comments

Passage of Prop 22 Would Set A Dangerous Precedent

10/7/2020

0 Comments

 
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.
0 Comments

Governor Newsom Finishes Out Legislative Season Signing Several Pro-Employee Bills

10/2/2020

0 Comments

 
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.
0 Comments

    Author

    Lauren Teukolsky is the founder and owner of Teukolsky Law, A Professional Corporation.

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    May 2018
    December 2017
    October 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017

    Categories

    All
    AB 1041
    AB 1288
    AB 1949
    AB 2188
    AB 2288
    AB 2499
    AB 257
    AB5
    AB 51
    ACBA
    ADA
    Advocate Magazine
    AFL-CIO
    Amazon
    Appellate Court
    Arbitration
    Arbitration Agreement
    Avvo
    Bereavement Leave
    Berkeley
    Black Lives Matter
    Blackwell
    Bloomberg
    Boycott
    CAFA
    California
    California Labor And Employment Review
    California Lawyers Association
    California Supreme Court
    Cannabis
    Captive Audience
    Case Notes
    CBA
    CELA
    CFRA
    Chateau Marmont
    Civil Rights
    CLA
    Class Action
    Class Action Waiver
    CLEL
    Client Choice
    College Of Labor And Employment Lawyers
    Conference
    Confidentiality
    Congress
    Coronavirus
    COVID
    COVID 19
    COVID-19
    CROWN Act
    Daily Journal
    De Minimis
    Department Of Labor
    Discrimination
    Dynamex
    EFAA
    Ella Hushagen
    Employee
    Fair Labor Standards Act
    Fair Work Week Ordinance
    Family Leave
    Fast Food Workers
    FEHA
    Forced Arbitration
    FTC
    Gag Clause
    Gender Discrimination
    Gender Dysphoria
    Gender Gap
    Gender Identity
    Gig Workers
    Google
    Governor Newsom
    Harassment
    Healthcare Worker
    Health Insurance
    Higher Wages
    Hms Host
    Hollywood Writers' Strike
    Hotel
    Hotel Figueroa
    Hotel Worker Retention Ordinance
    Hotel Workers
    Housekeeper's Bill Of Rights
    HR 4445
    HWPO
    Hyatt
    Immigration
    Immigration Status
    Independent Contractor
    JC Resorts
    Julie Su
    LACBA
    LA County
    Lauren Teukolsky
    LAUSD
    Law360
    Law.com
    Lawsuit
    Lax
    Leadership
    Legal Aid At Work
    Legal Dive
    Legislation
    LERA
    Litigation
    Living Wage Ordinance
    Local Ordinance
    Long Beach
    Long Beach Hotel Working Conditions
    Los Angeles
    Lyft
    McDonalds
    McLaren Macomb
    #metoo
    MeToo
    Microsoft
    Minimum Wage
    Misclassification
    Montage
    Naranjo
    NCAA
    NDA
    NLRA
    NLRB
    Nonbinary
    Noncompete Agreements
    Non Disclosure Agreement
    Non-disclosure Agreement
    Non Disparagement
    Non-disparagement
    Organizing
    Oscars
    Paga
    Panel
    Pay Gap
    Pendry
    President Biden
    Press
    Private Attorney General Act
    Prop 22
    Race Discrimination
    Remote Work
    Reproductive Health
    Retaliation
    Roe V. Wade
    Safe Leave
    SB 1137
    SB 1162
    SB 1350
    SB 616
    SB 699
    SB 836
    SB 848
    SB 92
    SCOTUS
    Settlement
    Severance
    Severance Agreements
    Sex Harassment
    Sexual Assault
    Sexual Harassment
    Sick Leave
    Silenced No More
    Silicon Valley
    Silicon Valley Bank
    Southern California
    Speaking Engagement
    Speak Out Act
    Strike
    Super Lawyers
    Supreme Court
    Symposium
    Teamsters
    Tech
    Teukolsky
    Teukolsky Law
    The Guardian
    Thomasina Gross
    Toolkit
    Training
    Transgender
    Troester
    Twitter
    Uber
    Ucla
    UFCW
    Union
    Unions
    Unite Here
    Unite Here Local 11
    USC
    U.S. Soccer
    Vacation Time
    Viking River
    Wage And Hour
    Wage-and-hour
    Wage Gap
    Whistleblower
    Women
    Workers
    Workers Compensation
    Wrongful Termination

    RSS Feed

Privacy Policy

Home

About

Blog

Contact

Teukolsky Law, A Professional Corporation, represents clients throughout California.  Ms. Teukolsky is admitted to practice in the State of California, as well as the United States Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Northern District of California and Central District of California.  Disclaimer. 
​
Copyright © 2017
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • Practice Areas
  • Contact
  • Testimonials