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 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.  

California has passed a law banning “stay-or-pay” provisions in employment agreements. Effective January 1, 2026, A.B. 692 prohibits employers from requiring workers to repay training costs or other debts if they leave their jobs.

Stay-or-pay requirements, also known as training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, cause workers to stay with an employer out of fear of repaying thousands of dollars in training costs. Employers use TRAPs to incentivize workers to stay in their jobs. Critics say that stay-or-pay clauses limit job mobility and force employees to work for lower wages. The American Civil Liberties Union has called these contracts “a form of indentured servitude.”

TRAPs often exacerbate gender and racial disparities in the workplace because immigrants and women of color disproportionately hold low wage jobs with stay-or-pay provisions.

The law, which adds a new section to the California Labor Code, permits employees subject to TRAPs to sue for civil penalties with a minimum of $5,000 per worker. Some narrow exceptions exist for loan repayment assistance program contracts and tuition repayment contracts.
​
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 are subject to an unlawful TRAP, click here to get in touch.

On October 8, 2025, Governor Newsom signed the Equal Pay Enforcement Act (SB 642) into law. Effective January 1, 2026, the new law strengthens California’s Equal Pay Act by broadening wage transparency requirements and extending the timeframe for employees to bring claims.

Under SB 642, employers are now required to provide a good faith estimate of expected pay in job postings. Pay ranges may only vary 10% above and below the mean pay for any given position. The law extends the time that employees may file a claim from two to three years. It adopts the continuing violations doctrine, allowing workers to seek back pay for up to six years.

Additionally, the law clarifies that the requirement of equal “wages” covers not just monetary pay, but also equity grants like stock and stock options. The law modernizes existing protections by removing binary gender language, protecting all employees regardless of gender identity.

SB 642 is an important step toward addressing the racial and gender wage gap. American women lose $1.7 trillion annually because of the wage gap. Black women earn just 64 cents for every dollar earned by a white man. Mariko Yoshihara, Policy Director for the California Employment Lawyers Association, explained that, “one of the biggest barriers to advancing pay equity is that workers often don’t know that they are being paid unfairly until it is too late.”
​
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.

California is leading the nation with new regulations on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in employment practices. Starting October 1, 2025, employers must follow antidiscrimination rules when using AI systems to make decisions on hiring, firing, promotion, or performance evaluations. If an AI system demonstrates bias against a protected group, even unintentionally, it may violate state civil right protections. This addresses a growing concern that AI tools used in decision-making may amplify existing inequalities in the workplace.

A wide range of AI tools used by employers are covered by the new regulations, from resume screeners to automated applicant ranking systems. Employers are encouraged to test these tools regularly for biases and document active preventative measures taken to mitigate potential discrimination in their AI tools. These records must be preserved for four years. The bottom line is that employers must explain how employment decisions using AI tools are made with preventative measures in mind.

For workers, these regulations provide a legal pathway to relief if they believe AI has been used to discriminate against them. For employers, the regulations create an incentive to conduct frequent bias testing and training as insurance against any lawsuits. Employers can raise evidence of anti-bias testing as an affirmative defense against AI discrimination lawsuits. Courts will have to weigh factors like the quality and timing of an employer’s bias testing, and whether any harmful results were addressed.

Additional AI legislation, SB 7, is on Governor Newsom’s desk awaiting signature. The bill could restrict employers from using AI to make personnel decisions without human involvement. California agencies are considering additional AI regulations in housing, education, lending, and health care.

 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.

California lawmakers have advanced a bill that would allow the state to protect labor relations and unionization efforts traditionally handled by the federal government. The bill comes amid a crisis at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which was left nonfunctional earlier this year. In February 2025, President Donald Trump dismissed a member of the NLRB, leaving the five-member Board without a quorum necessary to conduct business. With the board left paralyzed, the NLRB’s backlog of unaddressed cases continues to grow. States are now beginning to look at alternative ways to protect labor rights.

California Assembly Bill 288 is intended to circumvent the NLRB by significantly expanding the powers of the state’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB currently handles only public sector labor disputes. The proposed law would grant PERB authority to hear labor matters affecting private-sector workers if a case brought to the NLRB does not receive a response in six months. Once signed into law, AB 288 allows workers to petition PERB to rule on unfair labor practices, certify a union, order employers to bargain, and impose civil penalties. The law does not create new rights. Instead, it creates a parallel enforcement process in the absence of an NLRB quorum.

The bill was sent to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk and is awaiting his signature. Union sponsors of the bill are urging Governor Newsom to sign it into law. "Under AB 288, when the NLRB is unable or unwilling to act, the state will step in to enforce the law and ensure that workers who want a union actually get a union," said Lorena Gonzalez, President of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO.
​
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 a labor matter, click here.

The State of California has reached a deal with Uber and Lyft to allow rideshare drivers to unionize.  As part of the deal, the two companies will support AB 1340, which creates a framework for drivers to unionize. In exchange, California’s legislators will back a measure sponsored by Uber and Lyft to cut insurance requirements for their drivers.

AB 1340 allows unions to trigger an election by presenting proof that at least 10% of active drivers support the union. If 30% of drivers vote in favor of unionizing, the state will automatically certify the union. Notably, AB 1340 does not reclassify rideshare drivers as employees, a goal of labor advocates. Instead, drivers will keep their independent contractor classification, depriving them of minimum wage protections and workers compensations insurance, among other employee protections. The bill is now headed to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk, and he is expected to sign.

The deal could mark the end of years of litigation over the employee status of rideshare drivers. In 2018, the California Supreme Court handed down a ruling making it easier for workers to prove they were misclassified as independent contractors. California then passed a law codifying the Supreme Court’s ruling. But in 2020, voters then passed Prop 22, a ballot initiative funded by Uber and Lyft to classify drivers as independent contractors.

In return for supporting the union deal, California’s State Senate President, Mike McGuire, and California Assembly Speaker, Robert Rivas, agreed to back Senate Bill 371, a measure that cuts insurance obligations for rideshare drivers from $1 million to $60,000 per driver, making service cheaper.
​
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 a wage-and-hour matter, click here.

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a Law 360 article about a recent California Supreme Court decision on arbitration fees, Hohenshelt v. Superior Court. The case involves a new California law, SB707, that requires employers who compel employee claims to arbitration to pay arbitration fees in a timely manner or risk being sent back to the trial court. The question before the Court was whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted SB707 because it improperly burdens the employer’s ability to enforce private arbitration agreements. The new law is part of the California Arbitration Act (CAA), codified in the California Code of Civil Procedure.

In its decision, the California Supreme Court held that lower courts have been overly strict in their application of SB707, finding that employers waived arbitration for minor infractions, such as missing the payment deadline by only two days. The Court held that SB707 must be interpreted against the backdrop of existing contract law, and is not meant punish employers for good faith mistakes, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Going forward, the employee must show that the employer’s failure to pay arbitration fees on time was willful or grossly negligent. When SB707 is interpreted in this more lenient manner, the Court held, it is not preempted by the FAA because it does not single out arbitration agreements for worse treatment than other contracts.

The Law 360 article quoted Ms. Teukolsky who described the decision as a “mixed bag.” She explained, “The law still remains, but Justice Liu definitely made it easier for employers to stay in arbitration when they pay arbitration fees late. This does appear to be a new standard going forward."

Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including in employee misclassification 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.

Johnny Johnson and Hugo Sipaque are suing their former employer, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), for failing to properly compensate hourly metro workers.  The lawsuit alleges that LACMTA violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by requiring line instructors to be present 15 to 30 minutes before they clocked in for their scheduled shift.

The plaintiffs argue that if they didn’t show up early, they’d be in trouble. LACMTA allegedly enforced this requirement but failed to pay its line instructors for the time spent on pre-shift work on LACMTA premises.
The lawsuit also alleges violations for failure to pay overtime wages because the additional time worked from pre-shift activities caused some employees to work more than 40 hours a week.  LACMTA’s failure to compensate workers for all hours worked also causes them to produce inaccurate wage statements.

Plaintiffs believe that a class of around 700 current and former employees all suffered similar violations while working for LACMTA in the past four years. They allege their claims amount to $26 million in damages.

Lauren Teukolsky is an expert on wage-and-hour laws. She has written for the California Labor and Employment Law Review for over two years. Her “Wage and Hour Case Notes” are published on an alternating quarterly basis. 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’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the July 2025 edition of the CLA California Labor and Employment Law Review. Her column describes four recent decisions from California’s appellate courts that affect wage-and-hour law, including Williams v. Alacrity Solutions, a PAGA case that will be reviewed by the California Supreme Court in coming months.

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 on an alternating quarterly basis. 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.