 Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in April 22 article by The Guardian, which discusses Amazon’s treatment of injured workers. Workers were allegedly encouraged to continue their shifts shortly after witnessing traumatic events or medical emergencies on the floor. According to the article, workers say Amazon artificially lowers its injury numbers by using its in-house medical clinics, known as AmCare, to filter out injury reports. The article quotes workers as saying these clinics provide minimal care and are used to help Amazon avoid officially recording an injury.
The article describes a recent lawsuit that Teukolsky Law filed against Amazon. In the complaint, plaintiff Juan Loera-Gomez alleges he suffered injuries to his back and shoulders after spending hours lifting boxes that each weighed more than 50 pounds. Amazon allegedly accommodated his injuries by moving him to a light duty position for six months, but abruptly placed him on unpaid leave, saying the company could no longer accommodate his work restrictions. He was then fired. The lawsuit alleges claims for disability discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. The Guardian quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying, “This isn’t an isolated incident. It looks to me there’s a pretty clear pattern of this occurring in Amazon warehouses” 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, Daily Journal, 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.
0 Comments
 The Department of Labor (DOL) recently proposed several new changes to wage and hour laws. The DOL published a proposed rule to restructure wage calculations for H1-B immigrant workers last month, raising their minimum wage and making it more costly for employers to sponsor entry-level workers.
In February, the DOL proposed a rule to rescind the 2024 Biden-era guidance on the classification of independent contractors. The rules return to the 2021-Trump-era rule, the “economic dependence” test, and lower the bar for workers to be classified as independent contractors. The test examines the opportunity for workers to earn profits or incur losses based on their initiative and the degree of control a worker exercises over their work. The DOL has also proposed rules that make it more difficult for employees to prove joint employer liability. The new rule narrowly defines a joint employer as any business which has “substantial direct and immediate control” over another employer’s workers. Employers that meet the joint employer criteria are potentially liable for unfair labor practices committed by the other companies and they have a duty to negotiate with a union representing the jointly employed workers. Under this narrow definition, workers will have a harder time proving that another company is jointly liable for federal bargaining obligations or for unfair labor practices. Lauren 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. If you have a wage-and-hour issue and would like to speak with her, click here. The Inland Empire’s local NPR affiliate, KVCR News, covered a recent lawsuit filed by Teukolsky Law against Amazon on behalf of Juan Loera, a former San Bernardino warehouse employee who sustained life-altering injuries after two years of handling heavy cargo. The lawsuit contends Mr. Loera’s condition required medical accommodation, but he was allegedly forced into unpaid leave and eventually terminated via email, causing significant financial hardship for his family.
Data from the Strategic Organizing Center and the National Employment Law Project shows that the serious injury rate at Amazon facilities was nearly double that of its industry competitors in 2024. The company accounted for 56% of all serious industry injuries, often requiring workers to be moved to light duty or to miss work entirely due to the severity of their physical trauma. As the Inland Empire continues to serve as a global hub for logistics, this case serves as a bellwether for how large-scale employers manage disability accommodations and the protection of workers who exercise their right to demand safer working conditions. Mr. Loera is represented by Lauren Teukolsky and staff attorneys at The Warehouse Worker Resources Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving working conditions in the warehouse industry in Southern California. Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including in unpaid wage 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 KVCR 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.  A Law360 article covers a recent lawsuit filed by Teukolsky Law against food service giant Compass Group USA regarding unpaid travel time at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The article highlights the significant amounts of unpaid time airport lounge workers must spend on employer-mandated shuttle buses to travel to their work stations after they pass through TSA security checkpoints.
Plaintiff Ignacio Vazquez and his coworkers work in the remote Terminal R , which is not connected to LAX and can only be accessed by taking a shuttle. The complaint alleges that employees must wait alongside passengers for the shuttle to arrive, take the shuttle across the tarmac (where they are often stopped by passing airplanes), and are allowed to clock in only after they reach their workstations in Terminal R. A previous employer permitted employees to clock in before they boarded the employer-mandated shuttle bus and be paid for the travel time, but Compass changed this practice, resulting in significant amounts of unpaid time. The lawsuit alleges Compass disciplined employees who attempted to clock in before they boarded the shuttle so they could be paid for the time. As discussed in the Law360 article, employees can lose up to an hour of pay each day navigating the mandatory travel requirements. Mr. Vazquez and putative class members are represented by Lauren Teukolsky and staff attorneys from UNITE HERE Local 11. Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including in unpaid wage 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.  Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the March 2026 edition of the California Labor and Employment Law Review. Her column describes recent decisions from California’s appellate courts that affect wage-and-hour law, including Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center, in which the appeals court held that religious organizations are not exempt from California’s wage and hour laws.
The California Lawyers Association (CLA) is a voluntary statewide bar association. Ms. Teukolsky was recently appointed to serve on the Executive Committee of CLA’s Labor & Employment Section. Her three-year term started 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 every other quarter. 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. If you would like to speak with Ms. Teukolsky about a wage-and-hour matter, click here.  Lauren Teukolsky was recently selected to the 2026 Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers list and the 2026 Top 50 Women Southern California Super Lawyers list. This is the third time Ms. Teukolsky has earned a spot on the “Top 100” list. The selections were made by Super Lawyers, a rating service that recognizes “outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.”
This year’s lists mark Ms. Teukolsky’s fourteenth consecutive selection by Super Lawyers, a streak that began in 2013. Before that, she was selected as a Super Lawyers Rising Star from 2004 to 2010. The Super Lawyers selection process involves a multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area. The objective of the selection process is to create a comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The top 5% of attorneys are selected to Super Lawyers lists each year. Lauren Teukolsky has worked to protect employees’ rights for over two decades and speaks regularly at conferences on employment law. 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 learn more about Ms. Teukolsky, click here. If you believe you have been wrongfully terminated, harassed, or suffered from other unlawful workplace practices, click here to get in touch with our office.  Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a January 14 Bloomberg Law article about recent developments surrounding the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), a California law that permits employees to stand in the shoes of the state to enforce provisions of the Labor Code on behalf of an entire workforce.
A growing number of employers require workers to sign mandatory arbitration agreements, forcing workers into a private court system that deprives them of a judge and jury. Employers also may require employees to waive their right to bring class action lawsuits through a mandatory arbitration agreement. However, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2022 that employers may not require employees to waive their right to bring a PAGA action through an arbitration agreement. Several important pending lawsuits will define the scope of PAGA, and whether workers must arbitrate some aspects of their PAGA claims. Bloomberg law quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying, “Defendants are trying to figure out ways to send pieces of [PAGA] cases to arbitration to narrow them and to slow them down.” She also noted that when aspects of PAGA cases are sent to arbitration, the effect of an arbitrator’s ruling on the PAGA claim pending in court is “still an open question.” 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.  California passed AB 288, dubbed the “NLRB Fill-In” Law, that allows the state to fill in the gaps of federal agencies that are unwilling or unable to act. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was gutted by Trump early last year, leaving the board without a quorum necessary to handle the growing backlog of labor disputes. The NLRB Fill-In law would have allowed the state’s labor board to take over cases when the NLRB takes too long to make decisions or remains quorumless.
A federal district court recently blocked the most important parts of this law. The judge ruled that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which created the NLRB, preempts any California law. The court explained that California cannot simply take over federal responsibilities just because the state thinks the federal agency is moving too slowly or lacks independence. To keep labor rules consistent across the nation, the court decided that the federal government must maintain exclusive authority over private-sector labor issues. However, the court left some parts of the law intact, but only when the NLRB explicitly declines jurisdiction or workers lose coverage under the federal agency. Lauren 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. If you would like to speak with her about an employment matter, click here. For our previous coverage on AB 288, click here.  Starting January 1, 2026, California workers will be protected by several new laws. In Part 2 of our 2026 employment law update, we discuss two new laws that now cover California workers.
Senate Bill 294, The Workplace Know Your Rights Act, requires all California employers to provide an annual written notice to employees that outlines their rights. The notice must cover an employee’s constitutional rights, protections against unfair immigration-related practices, workers’ compensation benefits (including disability pay), and medical care for injuries sustained on the job. A key provision of SB 294 is the requirement for employers to offer an emergency contact designation. By March 30, 2026, employers must allow workers to name a specific person to be notified if the worker is arrested or detained at the worksite or during work hours. This measure was developed in response to workplace immigration enforcement actions, which often left families unaware of a worker’s whereabouts. Assembly Bill 250 establishes a "revival window" from January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2027, allowing survivors of sexual assault to file civil lawsuits even if the original statute of limitations has expired. This law permits survivors to seek damages for past incidents provided they can allege that a liable party actively engaged in a "cover-up" to conceal the misconduct. By defining a cover-up to include the use of restrictive non-disclosure agreements or the failure to investigate prior complaints, AB 250 significantly increases legal exposure for companies that have historically protected abusers from accountability in the workplace. Lauren 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. If you believe you have experienced a legal violation at work, click here to get in touch with our office.  Starting January 1, 2026, California workers will be protected by several new laws. In Part 1 of our 2026 employment law update, we discuss three new laws that are set to take effect in the new year.
SB 648 makes tips and gratuities the sole property of the employee. Tips cannot be deducted, withheld, or taken from workers who earn them. The law also creates a new enforcement mechanism for the California labor commissioner to prosecute tip and gratuity claims. Previously, while the labor commissioner could investigate wage theft, they lacked the authority to issue direct citations for tip violations. Effective January 1, 2026, SB 648 closes this gap, allowing the labor commissioner to issue citations and file civil actions against employers for unlawful tip practices. SB 513 expands the definition of “personnel records” to include training documentation. California law already requires employers to provide employees with their personnel files on request. Historically, however, employers have not disclosed records of safety certification or specialized software training, making it difficult for workers to prove their qualifications to future employers. Now, employers are required to give a copy of all education and training documentation to employees upon request. The documents must include the trainer’s name, the duration of the training, and the "core competencies" gained. SB 617 strengthens the California WARN Act by requiring employers to disclose whether they plan to coordinate transition services to workers during mass layoffs or relocations. In their 60-day notice of an impending layoff, employers must include detailed information about CalFresh, specific contact info for local job centers, and detailed information regarding any efforts to coordinate job placement with local workforce boards. Stay tuned for part 2 of our series, which will discuss additional new laws going into effect in 2026. Lauren 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. If you believe you have a wage-and-hour claim, click here to get in touch with our office. |
AuthorLauren Teukolsky is the founder and owner of Teukolsky Law, A Professional Corporation. Archives
January 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
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
Copyright © 2017