On October 8, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 331 into law. The bill, sponsored by State Senator Connie Leyva, makes it illegal for companies to prohibit employees from speaking about discrimination and harassment.

Previously, laws such as the Stand Together Against Non-Disclosures Act banned non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in sexual harassment, but did not prohibit NDAs for other types of discrimination, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Now, California workers will have legal protections for speaking out about all manner of unlawful conduct in the workplace.

This legislation has been strongly supported by Ifeoma Ozoma, a Pinterest whistleblower who spoke out about racial discrimination at the company. NDAs are commonly used, particularly in the tech industry, to keep employees quiet about workplace harassment and discrimination for fear of facing legal action and fines. People began discussing them more frequently after it was reported during the #MeToo movement that Harvey Weinstein and other abusers used NDAs to silence their victims.

SB 331 was sponsored by the California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA), the organization Earthseed, and Equal Rights Advocates. It will take effect on January 1, 2022.
​
If you believe you have been a victim of discrimination or harassment in the workplace, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation. 

On October 7, 2021 at noon, Lauren Teukolsky will lead a discovery training for non-profit attorneys alongside litigation veterans Bob Newman and Lorraine Lopez. The training is part of the Western Center on Law and Poverty’s “Discovery Academy,” taking place over seven sessions starting tomorrow. Ms. Teukolsky and her colleagues will provide discovery tips and perspectives that are enlightening for both new and experienced litigators. The Center is anticipating over 350 participants at the training—mostly attorneys who work at non-profits in California providing legal services to indigent clients. Ms. Teukolsky is a frequent speaker at conferences and panels on topics of employment law and litigation, and most recently spoke at the Bellagio in Las Vegas as part of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) annual convention.

On Monday, the Ninth Circuit handed gig workers a win, invalidating a ruling that a Grubhub driver should be classified as an independent contractor. The Court ruled that the lower court must look at the case again because the California Supreme Court has now held that the Dynamex “ABC” test applies retroactively. Under the ABC test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the employer can prove that the worker: (A) was not subject to the employer’s control, (B) provided services outside of the employer’s usual course of business, and (C) did not have their own independent business.

The three-judge appellate panel remanded to the district court to apply the ABC test to plaintiff Raef Lawson’s minimum wage and overtime claims. The panel rejected Grubhub’s argument that Prop 22, which was passed last year and allows some app-based drivers to be classified as independent contractors, applies retroactively. “We conclude without difficulty that Proposition 22 does not apply retroactively,” the Court wrote. The panel also rejected Grubhub’s argument that Prop 22 somehow “abates” or nullifies wage claims that accrued before Prop 22 went into effect. This is the first time a court has ruled that Prop 22 is not retroactive, and that Prop 22 does not abate previously-existing wage claims.

On remand, the lower court must determine whether Lawson is an employee under the ABC test, and also whether Lawson is exempt from the ABC test under one of the exemptions provided for by AB5, the landmark legislation that codified the ABC test after Dynamex was decided. The AB5 exemptions are retroactive. We will be following this case closely to see if the lower court will find that Lawson is an employee or an independent contractor.

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

Deadline and the Hollywood Reporter reported on August 23 that Paramount+’s miniseries about the making of The Godfather, The Offer, has canceled filming at the Chateau Marmont after learning about the Chateau’s labor dispute with Unite Here Local 11.

The production, which stars prominent actors including Miles Teller and Colin Hanks, was scheduled to film at the Chateau between August 25 and 27. The production is the second this year to pull out of planned business with the hotel. Former workers at the hotel launched the boycott in February along with the union, calling on the hotel to rehire workers in accordance with LA’s recall ordinance. Teukolsky Law has filed two lawsuits against Chateau Marmont this year on behalf of former employees alleging sexual harassment and racial discrimination.

Union co-president Kurt Petersen wrote in a statement, “We applaud Paramount Plus’s decision to honor the boycott of the Chateau Marmont. We thank all the Hollywood unions — SAG AFTRA, IATSE, Teamsters, WGA and DGA — for supporting these courageous workers who have spoken out for dignity and respect.” 

Last Friday, August 20, Judge Frank Roesch of the Alameda Superior Court ruled Prop 22 unconstitutional, holding that the 2020 ballot measure violated California’s Constitution by limiting the Legislature’s authority to determine which workers will qualify for worker’s compensation. The judge wrote, “[Prop 22] is unconstitutional because it limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law… The entirety of Proposition 22 is unenforceable.”  The court also found that Prop 22 is “constitutionally problematic” because it requires a seven-eights majority of the Legislature to amend its terms, an unconstitutional restriction on the Legislature’s right to amend through a supermajority.

Prop 22 was passed last year and allows gig worker companies such as Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to continue classifying their workers as independent contractors rather than employees, thereby denying them the full wages and benefits afforded to employees in California. Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash, which spent more than $200 million to pass the ballot measure, said they would appeal the ruling. The law remains in effect for now, but Friday’s ruling is a major setback for the companies, which have spent years fighting against California’s strong worker protections. They are currently introducing similar legislation in Massachusetts to reduce gig worker protections in that state.

The defendants have vowed to appeal, and it is likely that the fate of Prop 22 will ultimately be decided by the California Supreme Court.
​
If you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

On Thursday, September 2, Lauren Teukolsky will be speaking at the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) Annual Las Vegas convention. Ms. Teukolsky will be speaking about how to avoid ending up in arbitration and how to stay in court.  She will cover the top 10 things attorneys need to know to oppose a motion to compel arbitration.  The program will take place in the afternoon as part of the conference’s first concurrent sessions. The annual conference is the largest convention of trial attorneys nationally, and has been held each year in Las Vegas since 1983. Ms. Teukolsky is a frequent speaker at conferences on topics of employment law and litigation. Registration information for the conference can be found here.

Late last week, an Illinois appellate court affirmed that Hobby Lobby violated Illinois’s Human Rights Act by banning a trans employee from using the women’s restroom. In a resounding victory for trans employees, the appellate panel held that the Illinois Human Rights Commission correctly found that Hobby Lobby discriminated against the employee because of her gender identity.

Meggan Sommerville, who has worked at Hobby Lobby for 23 years, first filed complaints with the Human Rights Commission in 2013. She informed Hobby Lobby of her medical and legal transition in July 2010; the company changed her administrative information, but did not let her use the women’s bathroom.

On appeal, Hobby Lobby had argued that it had limited bathroom access based on sex, not gender identity, and that Sommerville was of the male sex. The court wrote, “There is simply no basis in the [Human Rights Act] for treating the ‘status’ of being male or female as eternally fixed.”

Although this case marked an issue of first impression in Illinois, California has some of the strongest protections for transgender employees in the nation. Teukolsky Law has successfully handled several matters for transgender clients. If you believe you have been discriminated against based on your gender identity or expression, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation. 

Bloomberg Law published an article on July 22, 2021 about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling that Amazon must pay workers for time they spend waiting in security lines. The article discusses some recent trends and litigation in California regarding employees’ right to be compensated for short time periods, known as “de minimis” time. This could include time that employees spend in pandemic-related health screening, and time employees spend texting or emailing on their smartphones while off the clock. Lauren Teukolsky is quoted in the article discussing the Troester ruling, which eliminated the de minimis exception.

The article states: “In California, the Troester ruling that eliminated the de minimis exception has sparked worker lawsuits based on allegations of doing short tasks after hours, such as responding to emails and texts, said Lauren Teukolsky, an attorney at Teukolsky Law PC who represents workers.”

If you believe you have not been compensated properly at work, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

On July 16, Lauren Teukolsky spoke on a panel about emerging trends in wage & hour law. The panel was part of the California Lawyers Association (CLA, formerly State Bar) Labor & Employment Section’s 2021 Annual Conference.  Ms. Teukolsky was joined by co-panelist Aaron Cole, a Shareholder at Ogletree Deakins in Los Angeles, who provided the defense bar's perspective. The panel was moderated by Hina Shah, a Professor of Law and Director of the Women’s Employment Rights Clinic at Golden Gate University. The panel covered numerous emergent trends in wage & hour cases, including an upswing in reimbursement cases; employers requiring employees to use their cell phones for work without providing a phone stipend; and failure to compensate employees for emailing and texting while off the clock. Ms. Teukolsky and Mr. Cole also discussed several issues related to COVID, such as whether employers need to pay employees for undergoing work-related COVID screening; unsafe working environments; and cases stemming from employers’ failure to pay out vacation time when mass layoffs occurred.

Ms. Teukolsky is a frequent speaker at conferences on topics of employment law and litigation.  She has an upcoming in-person speaking engagement in Las Vegas in September 2021 for the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA) Annual Conference on opposing motions to compel arbitration.