​Lauren Teukolsky was recently quoted in a Bloomberg Law article about the new PAGA reform package passed by the California Legislature in early July 2024. The package represents a compromise between businesses and labor groups that aims to strengthen worker protections while allowing employers to cure violations and face lower penalties. The reformed law, decades-long in the making, avoids a contentious ballot measure that would have repealed PAGA entirely if passed.

Several measures of the reform package benefit workers.  If a PAGA plaintiff recovers penalties for Labor Code violations, aggrieved employees get to keep 35% of the penalties, up from 25% under the previous law.  As before, the remainder of penalties are paid to the State.  Workers are also authorized to seek injunctive relief (i.e., a court order to require an employer to stop an unlawful practice), a remedy not authorized by the previous law. 

Other measures favor employers. Subject to limited exceptions, employees are now permitted to seek penalties only for Labor Code violations they have actually suffered.  Previously, an employee who suffered one type of violation could file a PAGA suit on behalf of other employees for any violation of the Labor Code.

A crucial aspect of the PAGA reform package is the early evaluation conference, theoretically aimed at reducing litigation length and costs. Now, large employers with more than 100 employees can request an early evaluation conference which halts ongoing litigation until a neutral third party assess the plaintiff’s claims, the company’s efforts to comply with the Labor Code, and plans to cure violations. Smaller employers may access a similar process through the Labor and Workforce Development Agency.  If employers can demonstrate they have cured the violations, PAGA penalties may be capped.

PAGA practitioners and courts will need to grapple with setting up early evaluation conferences in the months to come.  The reform package does not dictate how courts are supposed to implement the early evaluation program, leading PAGA practitioners like Ms. Teukolsky to wonder how courts with limited resources will implement such programs, especially in the face of recent budget cuts that have slashed court services. 

The Bloomberg article quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying,  “While courts that frequently handle PAGA lawsuits, like Los Angeles Superior Court, probably will establish high functioning evaluation programs, it’s less clear what will happen with smaller courts that don’t see as much of that kind of litigation.”   

Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades and 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 article in its entirety, click here. If you believe you’ve been treated unlawfully in the workplace and want to get in touch with our office, click here.

Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the July 2024 edition of the CLA California Labor and Employment Law Review. Her column describes five recent decisions from California’s Supreme Court and appellate courts that affect wage-and-hour law. Among the decisions are rulings regarding minimum wage for pretrial detainees, arbitration agreements that exclude PAGA claims, and the standard for awarding penalties for inaccurate paystubs.

Ms. Teukolsky’s column also discusses whether employees without individual PAGA claims have standing to pursue PAGA claims on behalf of others, and whether employers waive their right to arbitration of individual PAGA claims if they do not move to compel arbitration in a timely manner.

CLA (California Lawyers Association) is a voluntary statewide bar association. Its mission is to “promote excellence, diversity and inclusion in the legal profession and fairness in access to justice and the rule of law.”  Ms. Teukolsky was recently appointed to serve on the Executive Committee of CLA’s Labor & Employment Section.  Her three-year term starts in October 2024.

Ms. Teukolsky has written for CLA’s California Labor and Employment Law Review for over two years. Her “Wage and Hour Case Notes” are published on an alternating quarterly basis.

Wage-and-hour law is an ever-evolving field with frequent rulings that regularly reshape the legal landscape. Ms. Teukolsky has navigated those rulings for over 20 years and is an expert in both state and federal wage-and-hour law. She speaks frequently on wage-and-hour topics at national and state conferences and is regularly quoted by media outlets for her insights on the topic.

To read Ms. Teukolsky’s article in its entirety, click here. If you would like to speak with Ms. Teukolsky about a wage-and-hour matter, click here.

Earlier this week, Lauren Teukolsky was appointed to the California Lawyers Association (CLA) Labor & Employment section’s Executive Committee. CLA is a statewide bar association with a mission to “promote excellence, diversity and inclusion in the legal profession and fairness in access to justice and the rule of law.”

The Executive Committee for CLA’s Labor and Employment Section plays a vital role in carrying out the sections’ basic functions in addition to collaborating on delivering programs, publications, services, and benefits to section members.

Executive Committee appointees are nominated by current Executive Committee members. Appointees are evaluated for their accomplishments and their proven commitment to volunteer work that demonstrates a commitment to public service, among other criteria.

Ms. Teukolsky regularly contributes to CLA’s California Labor and Employment Law Review, where her “Wage and Hour Case Notes” are published on an alternating quarterly basis.
​
Ms. Teukolsky’s three-year appointment on the Executive Committee will begin on September 8, 2024. 

​Earlier this month, Bloomberg Law quoted Lauren Teukolsky in an article about the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services.  The case involved a security guard who was provided with on-duty meal breaks.  After Spectrum fired him for leaving his post for a meal break, Naranjo sued for missed meal break premiums.  He sought an hour of premium pay for each day he missed a break.  After many years of litigation, the California Supreme Court held in a 2022 decision that Naranjo was permitted to seek penalties under Labor Code 226, which requires employers to provide accurate pay stubs listing all wages earned in a pay period.  Spectrum’s failure to list premium pay for missed breaks could entitle Naranjo to 226 penalties if Spectrum’s violation was “knowing and intentional.”

In the most recent California Supreme Court decision, issued on May 7, 2024, the Court held that Spectrum’s violations were not “knowing and intentional” because it reasonably believed in good faith that it had a defense to the requirement to pay missed meal premiums. 

The Court held that “if an employer reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing a complete and accurate wage statement in compliance with the requirements of section 226, then it has not knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with the wage statement law.” Going forward, employees will likely need to prove one of three things to recover 226 penalties: (1) the employer’s failure to report wages or hours on a pay stub was made in bad faith; (2) the employer’s defense was objectively unreasonable; or (3) the employer’s defense was unsupported by any evidence. 

In the Bloomberg Law article, Ms. Teukolsky discusses the significance of the ruling for California’s workers:

“The ruling isn’t ‘a death sentence’ for the ability of workers to recoup California wage and hour penalties, but it does place ‘a slightly higher burden on plaintiffs who want to recover those penalties,’ said Pasadena-based employee-side attorney Lauren Teukolsky.”
​
The article continues:

“’I don’t think it signals a shift in thinking among the California Supreme Court,’ Teukolsky said. ‘I view it as an incremental change in the standards that govern the imposition of penalties under California law. It’s not a sea change.’

Bloomberg Law’s article also includes thoughts from Ms. Teukolsky on how plaintiff-side employment attorneys will need to adapt to the Court’s ruling. Naranjo’s potential impact on PAGA claims is also discussed. 

Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades and her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Law360, Law.com, and the Los Angeles Times. Most recently, Ms. Teukolsky was quoted in a February Bloomberg Law article on the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC.
​
To read Bloomberg Law’s article in its entirety, click here. To get in touch with our office, click here. 

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a ban on noncompete agreements for nearly all American jobs, a measure that may have a significant impact on the country’s workers.

Noncompetes prohibit workers from quitting to go work for a competitor in the same industry, sharing proprietary information with new employers, and using proprietary information, such as customer lists, to start their own businesses.  Noncompete provisions often take the form of exploitative clauses in employment agreements, though companies do sometimes present their employees with agreements purely dedicated to noncompete provisions.

An estimated 30 million American workers — ranging from hair stylists and security guards to scientists and doctors — are subject to noncompetes.

The FTC is a federal agency created to protect the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods of competition. In the FTC’s announcement of the ban, the agency’s Chair, Biden-appointee Lina M. Khan, said that noncompetes “keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8,500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned.”

For over a decade, California’s workers have benefitted from state laws prohibiting noncompete agreements. 
​
The FTC’s new ban is set to take effect in August 2024. Because it is a federal ban, all employees in the country will be subject to the ban’s provisions (except for senior executives who have already entered into noncompetes). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country’s largest business lobbying group, has already challenged the FTC’s ban in federal court. 

This week, Lauren Teukolsky received the Avvo Clients’ Choice Award. The award is given to attorneys who receive at least five reviews of four stars or greater on Avvo, a site that allows people to search for and review attorneys across the country. Ms. Teukolsky has received six five-star reviews in 2024 alone. 

Ms. Teukolsky believes in a client-centered approach to lawyering, always putting the needs of her clients first.  She accepts only a small number of cases for representation each year, and devotes a significant amount of time to each case.  There is no one-size-fits-all approach to lawyering, and Ms. Teukolsky listens carefully to her clients before advising them about the best course of action.
   
Ms. Teukolsky launched Teukolsky Law in 2017 after nearly two decades of work for some of California's most prestigious civil rights firms and organizations. Since opening Teukolsky Law, she has remained committed to the state’s workers, successfully representing employees in a variety of wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, and class action wage-and-hour matters, among other practice areas.
​
In addition to the recent Avvo accolade, Ms. Teukolsky has been recognized for her work by Super Lawyers for 12 consecutive years. In 2022, Ms. Teukolsky was elected as a Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, the premier peer-selected organization of labor and employment lawyers in the United States.

To learn more about Ms. Teukolsky’s practice, click here. To view reviews of Ms. Teukolsky on Avvo, click here. 

On April 2, Teukolsky Law filed a class action lawsuit against Hotel Figueroa, alleging the hotel and its operators violated Los Angeles’s Hotel Worker Retention Ordinance when they failed to protect workers’ jobs after the hotel’s food and beverage operator, Noble 33, abruptly laid off all of its employees in February 2024.

The Hotel Worker Retention Ordinance was enacted to protect hotel workers affected by mass layoffs, which frequently occur when corporate ownership or management of a hotel changes. When employees are laid off following such a change, the Ordinance requires hotels and their operators to retain employees for a brief transitional period to ensure employment stabilization and reduce demands on social services.

In the case of Hotel Figueroa, more than 100 workers lost their jobs after Noble 33 decided to cease operations at the hotel days after the staff notified management of their intent to unionize. Noble 33 was quickly replaced by a new operator, The Botanical Group, but the lawsuit alleges that none of its former non-management staff were retained, including Maria Ibarra, a former cook for Noble 33.

Hotel Figueroa operates out of one of downtown Los Angeles’s most famous buildings, a 14 floor Spanish Mediterranean property that also houses upscale restaurants such as Café Fig and La Casita. The dispute at the hotel may be indicative of a broader Southern California trend of food workers standing up to their employers and alleging labor and employment law violations.
​
For UNITE HERE Local 11’s press release on Ms. Ibarra’s lawsuit, click here. For more on Ms. Teukolsky  and her practice, click here. 

AB 1228 took effect on April 1, 2024, meaning fast-food workers across California are now subject to a new $20 minimum wage. Many of the state’s more than half a million fast-food workers will see their wages raised as a result.

AB 1228 was signed into law last fall by Governor Gavin Newsom. Proponents of the bill believe the new play floor is necessary in light of changes to the fast-food industry’s workforce. Whereas in the past fast-food workers were often teenagers trying to earn spending money, nowadays fast-food workers are largely adults trying to support their families. Despite California’s $16 minimum wage, the second highest in the nation, many of these workers still find themselves in search of additional jobs to make ends meet.

Critics of the bill, many of whom are franchise owners, have complained that the law will force them to lay off staff and pass on their increased costs to customers. However, researchers have found that, as California doubled its minimum wage over the past decade, wages increased without employment falling.
​
The new minimum wage increase will apply to restaurants offering limited or no table service and which are part of a national chain with at least 60 establishments nationwide, with some exemptions. The law also figures to increase the wages of those outside of the fast-food industry, as employers compete for employees that may now be attracted to the industry’s higher minimum wage. 

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a Wednesday Bloomberg Law article about a recent Ninth Circuit opinion that discuss the effects of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber on PAGA cases proceeding in federal court.  The Ninth Circuit ruled that federal courts are bound to follow the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of PAGA standing, and do not need to follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s mistaken interpretation of PAGA standing in its 2022 Viking River Cruises decision.

In the Circuit Court’s decision, Judge Kenneth Kiyul Lee stated in his concurring opinion that arbitration proceedings under PAGA may not constitute a “full and fair opportunity to litigate,” thus offering a potential exception to arbitration proceedings’ preclusive effect on their associated court proceedings. In other words, if an employer were to receive a worker-friendly ruling from an arbitrator, that ruling may not have bearing on the analogous issues the employer is litigating in court.

How much of an effect Judge Lee’s opinion will have on California’s employment law landscape is still unclear. In Bloomberg Law’s article, Ms. Teukolsky says that the state’s appeals courts are still divided on the issue and have yet to “’squarely’” consider whether individual PAGA arbitration findings will impact group PAGA claims.

“’It’s too soon,’” Ms. Teukolsky says in the article.

The article also includes Ms. Teukolsky’s commentary on how Judge Lee’s opinion might be interpreted for the benefit of workers:

“The logic in Lee’s concurring opinion could also help claimants wield the ‘full and fair opportunity to litigate’ argument against adverse arbitration findings when their group PAGA claims unfold in court, Teukolsky said.”
​
Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades and 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 access the Bloomberg Law article in its entirety, click here. To learn more about Ms. Teukolsky’s practice and get in touch with the firm, click here. 

Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the March 2024 edition of the CLA California Labor and Employment Law Review. Ms. Teukolsky’s column describes three recent decisions from California and federal appellate courts that affect wage-and-hour law. Among the decisions are rulings regarding trial courts’ authority (or lack thereof) to strike “unmanageable” PAGA claims, and whether a policy requiring employees to remain on work premises during rest breaks merits class certification.

CLA (California Lawyers Association) is a voluntary statewide bar association. Its mission is to “promote excellence, diversity and inclusion in the legal profession and fairness in access to justice and the rule of law.” Ms. Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” are published on a quarterly basis by CLA’s Labor and Employment Law Section.

Wage-and-hour law is a dynamic field with new appellate decisions that regularly reshape the legal landscape. Ms. Teukolsky has navigated those appellate decisions for over 20 years and is an expert in both state and federal wage-and-hour law. She speaks frequently on wage-and-hour topics at national and state conferences and is regularly quoted by media outlets for her insights on the topic.

To read Ms. Teukolsky’s article in its entirety, click here. If you would like to speak with Ms. Teukolsky about a wage-and-hour matter, click here.