 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.
0 Comments
 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. The California Court of Appeal recently issued a significant decision in Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center, ruling that the "ministerial exception" does not shield religious organizations from minimum wage lawsuits. The case involved Annette Lorenzo, a former staff member at the San Francisco Sōtō Zen Buddhist church. Lorenzo performed religious duties, such as meditation and temple cleaning, but she also performed commercial work, including cooking, dishwashing, and serving guests. After leaving the church in 2019, she filed a claim alleging the Zen Center had illegally underpaid her for this commercial work.
The Zen Center argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the ministerial exception, a rule that protects churches from lawsuits that interfere with religious doctrine or the hiring of ministers. The Court of Appeal disagreed. The court reasoned that unlike wrongful termination cases, wage-and-hour claims do not force the court to intervene in a church's faith or internal doctrine. Since the Zen Center could not prove that paying staff minimum wage interfered with its religious mission, the court ruled in Lorenzo’s favor, allowing her wage claim to move forward. 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. She is Co-Chair of the Amicus Committee of the California Employment Lawyers Association, which submitted an amicus brief in favor of Lorenzo’s argument that the ministerial exception did not bar her claim for wage-and-hour violations. If you believe you have a wage-and-hour claim, click here to get in touch with our office.  Lauren Teukolsky is set to speak at the 2026 New Employment Law Practitioner Conference on Wage & Hour Basics. The virtual conference will take place on February 5-6, 2026 and is hosted by the California Lawyers Association’s Labor and Employment Law Section.
The conference is designed for new attorneys, professionals transitioning into labor or employment law, and HR practitioners. Attendees will receive practical and foundational guidance to help them confidently navigate the complexities of wage-and-hour rules and the broader field of employment law. Ms. Teukolsky has worked to protect employees’ rights for over two decades and speaks regularly at conferences on employment law. In the past year, Ms. Teukolsky spoke at the CLA Advanced Wage & Hour Conference on the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”); a conference at the Berkeley Law School on sexual harassment; and a LACBA symposium on PAGA. 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 register for the CLA Conference on February 5-6, 2026, click here. If you believe you’ve been treated unlawfully in the workplace and want to get in touch with our office, click here.  Three major federal employee unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), have filed a lawsuit against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), alleging that a new question on federal job applications creates an impermissible “political loyalty test.” At issue is a prompt now included in many job postings that asks candidates how they would “help advance the president’s executive orders and policy priorities” to identify specific initiatives they would support.
According to the unions, this requirement converts a traditionally merit-based civil service system into an unconstitutional political vetting process. Their complaint alleges that compelling applicants to explain their support for presidential policies infringes on First Amendment rights and chills political expression. The unions also cite data showing the essay prompt has appeared in over 5,800 postings, spanning from policy roles to maintenance and clerical positions. The OPM has defended the prompts as a lawful method to evaluate applicants’ skills and commitment to public service. Director Scott Kupor maintains that responses to the essay are optional and that hiring decisions “cannot consider political or ideological beliefs.” Still, the unions assert that internal guidance effectively makes the question mandatory and that political appointees may review the answers. The lawsuit will likely require the court to determine whether federal hiring standards may include political loyalty tests. For more on the latest developments in employment law, visit our blog here. If you believe you may have been discriminated against in the hiring process, click here to get in touch with our office.  Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the November 2025 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 Iloff v. LaPaille, a California Supreme Court case that makes it easier for employees to prove minimum wage violations.
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.  A federal court has blocked California’s “captive audience” law, halting Senate Bill 399, which was to take effect on January 1, 2025. The law would have prevented employers from requiring employees to attend workplace meetings on political, religious, or union topics, allowing employees to opt out without fear of retaliation. Supporters argued it protected workers from coercive tactics, while business groups claimed it infringed on employer speech and conflicted with federal labor law.
The California Chamber of Commerce sued to block the law, claiming it encroached on the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which grants the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) authority over private-sector labor relations. The U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction, finding S.B. 399 is likely preempted by federal labor law and violates the First Amendment by targeting employer communications based on content. Employers are allowed to hold “captive audience” meetings as litigation on S.B. 399 continues. For more on the latest developments in employment law, visit our blog here. For our previous coverage on S.B. 399, click here. If you believe your employer may have violated workplace laws, click here to get in touch with our office. LAUREN TEUKOLSKY RECEIVES 2025 SERVICE AWARD FROM CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION10/27/2025  Lauren Teukolsky of Teukolsky Law, APC was recently honored with a 2025 Service Award by the California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA). CELA selected Ms. Teukolsky based on her “leadership and service on numerous CELA Committees and dedication to the rights of working people.”
CELA is a statewide organization of more than 1,300 California attorneys who devote the majority of their practices to representing employees in individual and class action employment cases. CELA works to protect and expand the legal rights of workers through litigation, education, and advocacy. Ms. Teukolsky has more than 20 years of experience litigating employment cases. She has been a CELA member since 2002. She served as Co-Chair of CELA’s Wage & Hour Committee from 2019-2021, and currently serves on the Amicus Committee. 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. |
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