Lauren Teukolsky was quoted by Bloomberg Law and Law360 in a pair of articles discussing the class action lawsuit Teukolsky Law filed Wednesday against Hyatt for violating a law meant to protect hotel cleaning staff from being overworked and underpaid. The lawsuit is believed to be the first in the country brought under a “housekeepers bill of rights” law. Ms. Teukolsky represents the plaintiffs along with Zoe Tucker of UNITE HERE Local 11.

“Housekeeper’s bill of rights” laws broadly refer to laws created specifically to protect hotel cleaning staff from abuses at the workplace, including but not limited to wage theft and sexual harassment. The lawsuit filed by Ms. Teukolsky alleges that Hyatt violated the Long Beach Hotel Working Conditions Ordinance when it failed to pay hotel room attendants the required double wages they were owed for cleaning more than 4,000 square feet in a single day, among other violations.

Laws similar to Long Beach’s have been passed in Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and Seattle, in what has become a national trend of local municipalities stepping in to protect workers when their states and the federal government fail to.
Bloomberg Law’s article reads:

“’The voters of Long Beach passed a hotel workload ordinance to guarantee hardworking room attendants a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work,’ Teukolsky said in a statement. ‘As we say in the lawsuit, Hyatt has been flouting the law since the day it was passed.’”

In the Law360 article, Ms. Teukolsky states the following :

"Hotels are on notice that they can't cheat workers out of their wages with impunity.”
​
To read the Bloomberg Law article in its entirety, click here. To read the Law360 article in its entirety, click here.

If you believe that you have not been paid proper wages, click here to get in touch with our office. 

Teukolsky Law filed a class action lawsuit today against the Hyatt Regency Long Beach alleging that Hyatt violated the Long Beach Hotel Working Conditions Initiative (“Initiative”), a measure passed by voters in 2018 to provide protections to hotel workers.  A number of cities have passed similar hotel worker ordinances, including Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Seattle, and Oakland, among others.  This is the first lawsuit in the country brought under one of these “Housekeepers’ Bill of Rights” laws.  Lauren Teukolsky represents the plaintiffs along with Zoe Tucker of UNITE HERE Local 11.

The Initiative protects hotel employees against the risk of sexual assault by requiring hotels to provide them with panic buttons, and to post notices on guestroom doors stating that hotel workers may not be subjected to threatening behavior.  It also has a “Humane Workload” provision that guarantees room attendants double pay on days when their workload exceeds proscribed limits.  

The lawsuit alleges that Hyatt failed to post the required notices, and seeks injunctive relief requiring Hyatt to comply with the Initiative.  The lawsuit further alleges that Hyatt failed to pay room attendants double when they cleaned more square footage than permitted by the Initiative.  The lawsuit alleges that managers pressured housekeepers to work through their rest breaks to finish cleaning all of their assigned rooms as quickly as possible in violation of California law.  

The lawsuit is part of a larger trend of local governments passing laws that are more protective of workers than states or the federal government.  Los Angeles and several other cities have adopted Living Wage Ordinances, minimum wage ordinances, and sick pay ordinances that are far more protective of workers than state or federal legislation.  Local ordinances to protect hotel workers from grueling workloads are just the latest example of efforts by cities to improve the working conditions of workers in specific industries.  The trend can also be seen in fair scheduling ordinances, with Los Angeles recently passing the first such ordinance for retail workers.  Cities such as Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle have also passed various fair scheduling laws of their own.  

If you believe that you have not been paid proper wages, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

The Guardian published an article last Friday about a pair of high-profile lawsuits alleging that Los Serranos Golf Club repeatedly failed to protect four young women from a sexual harasser who worked as the club’s executive chef for more than two decades. The women are represented by Lauren Teukolsky and Zoe Tucker of UNITE HERE Local 11.

The women all began working at Los Serranos in 2021 as line cooks and event servers.  They were all between the ages of 17 and 20 at the time.  They allege that the Executive Chef, who had worked there for decades, made inappropriate romantic and sexual overtures towards them, frequently commented on their physical appearance, and engaged in inappropriate touching.  They allege that the chef would loudly compare their bodies and other physical attributes in crude terms with other male kitchen workers outside of their presence.   They allege that after they complained, the chef was only demoted, not fired, and they were required to continue working alongside him. 

According to the Guardian’s article, sexual harassment is pervasive in the restaurant service and hospitality industries in the US. The article cites a 2021 survey by One Fair Wage that found over 70% of female restaurant employees have been sexually harassed at least once while working in the industry.

The lawsuits are especially significant because they target JC Resorts, a luxury resort operator in Southern California that employs Los Serranos’ workers and has spent millions to oppose legislation that would improve protections against sexual harassment for women in the workplace.  Ms. Teukolsky  previously filed a sex harassment lawsuit against the Terranea, another luxury resort operated by JC Resorts.  Ms. Teukolsky’s client, Sandra Pezqueda, was named a TIME “Person of the Year” after she sued JC Resorts based on sexual harassment she suffered while employed at the Terranea. 

Ms. Teukolsky, has fought to protect employees rights for over 20 years and has represented women in high-profile sexual harassment cases in the past. Most recently, Ms. Teukolsky represented a woman who was sexually harassed while working at Los Angeles’ Chateau Marmont. The lawsuit was covered by the Hollywood Reporter and was one of several lawsuits against the Chateau that prompted a celebrity boycott of the legendary hotel.
​
To read the Guardian’s article in its entirety, click here. If you believe you’ve been sexually harassed at the workplace and want to get in touch with Teukolsky Law, click here. 

Lauren Teukolsky was recently selected to Southern California Super Lawyers Top 100. She also made the 2023 Women Southern California Super Lawyers Top 50. This year’s lists mark Ms. Teukolsky’s eleventh 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.

Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The objective of the selection process is to create a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.

Ms. Teukolsky has tirelessly advocated on behalf of workers for over two decades. She regularly speaks on panels to discuss employment law and is frequently quoted in news publications for her commentary on the latest developments in the field.
​
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.  

Last month, Bloomberg Law quoted Lauren Teukolsky in an article about the differing approaches taken by California Superior Courts and federal courts towards representative Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims in the months since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana.

In Viking River, the majority held that employers could force arbitration of workers’ individual claims under PAGA, a California law that allows workers to sue companies for employment law violations on behalf of the state. However, the decision was written in a way that essentially left the fate of representative PAGA claims in the hands of California’s lower courts.  

For the most part, federal courts have strictly adhered to the Supreme Court’s ruling, sending individual claims to arbitration, and dismissing representative PAGA claims in over half of the decisions analyzed by Bloomberg Law. According to research conducted by Ms. Teukolsky, California’s state courts have taken a different tack. The article states:

“In sharp contrast, state trial courts dismissed representative claims after moving individual claims into arbitration in just six of 75 decisions collected and analyzed by Lauren Teukolsky of the plaintiff-side firm Teukolsky Law PC. Bloomberg Law independently reviewed those decisions […] The trend of state courts not dismissing non-individual PAGA claims is a huge victory for workers in the state of California,” Teukolsky said.  The fate of PAGA will likely be decided in Adolph v. Uber, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court.

Ms. Teukolsky is frequently cited in news publications for her commentary on developments in employment law, including a pair of Bloomberg Law and Daily Journal articles in 2022 that featured her commentary on Viking River. Ms. Teukolsky also discussed the case on several panels organized by the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the California Employment Lawyers Association, and the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, the preeminent peer-selected organization of labor and employment lawyers in the United States. To learn more about Ms. Teukolsky’s experience, click here.
​
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.

In December, Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a Daily Journal article discussing the future of California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) in 2023.

PAGA is a California labor law that allows workers to sue their employers for labor violations on behalf of the state. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana was believed by some to be a victory for employers, preventing employees from asserting PAGA claims affecting multiple employees. However, according to the article, research conducted by Ms. Teukolsky in the aftermath of Viking shows employees have fared well in California state courts:

“Superior court judges have rejected defense motions to dismiss PAGA claims for a plaintiff’s co-workers 92% of the time even as they have referred individual claims to arbitration, according to records compiled by Lauren K. Teukolsky of the plaintiff’s firm Teukolsky Law APC. Just six PAGA cases have been dismissed in state court in what she referred to as the ‘full Alito.’”

In federal courts, the picture painted by Ms. Teukolsky’s research is not as encouraging for workers. The article states:

“Employers have had a lot more success in federal court, where judges have dismissed PAGA claims six of 11 times, she added. But the vast majority of cases ­– 75, Teukolsky said ­– have been considered in state court.”

Ms. Teukolsky previously discussed the implications of Viking River on panels organized by the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the California Employment Lawyers Association, and the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, the preeminent peer-selected organization of labor and employment lawyers in the United States.  She is also frequently cited in news publications for her commentary on developments in employment law, including a June 2022 Bloomberg Law article that featured her commentary on Viking River. To learn more about Ms. Teukolsky’s experience, click here.
​
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.

Law360 quoted Lauren Teukolsky in an article published earlier this month discussing Los Angeles’s new Fair Work Week Ordinance. The new law was passed by LA City Council in late November and seeks to alleviate the negative impacts that unpredictable workweeks have on thousands of Angelenos working in the retail sector.

A UCLA study released in 2018 found that 8 in 10 retail workers have fluctuating workweeks over which they have no control. This level of unpredictability makes caring for children, elderly parents, budgeting, and attending classes more difficult and can lead to financial insecurity.

The ordinance requires retailers to notify employees of their work schedule at least 14 calendar days in advance of the start of the work period. It also bans retailers from compelling employees to change work locations or hours after their work schedule has been published without first getting the employee’s consent. Employees who consent to a change are entitled to an additional hour of pay at their regular rate.

The ordinance also requires retailers provide premium pay to employees who have 10 hours or less between shifts. Retailers must also offer work to current employees before hiring employees or contractors to take on the additional work.

Only retailers in the city of Los Angeles with 300 or more employees globally must adhere to the ordinance’s requirements. However, future legislation may extend the ordinance’s provisions to other industries, as discussed in the article:

“’It will be interesting to see if predictive scheduling in Los Angeles gets expanded to other industries and professions that could benefit from predictive scheduling,’ said worker-side attorney Lauren Teukolsky of Teukolsky Law, who is based in the Los Angeles area.”
​
To read the Law360 article in its entirety, click here. To learn more about Ms. Teukolsky’s practice and get in touch with our office, click here. 

On December 7th, President Biden signed the Speak Out Act into law. The law makes nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) unenforceable if signed before a dispute involving sexual assault or sexual harassment arises. It comes less than a year after the passage of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, a law that also improved workplace protections for victims of sexual harassment and assault.

The Speak Out Act represents a big victory for #MeToo movement and workers’ advocates. NDAs are frequently used to silence workers and keep accusations of sexual misconduct out of the public eye. They also prevent many workers from explaining job departures and employment gaps caused by sexual misconduct to prospective employers. According to a paper authored by Professors at Syracuse University and the University of Maryland, approximately 26 % of U.S. employees are covered by NDAs.

It is important to remember that the bill does not apply to other kinds of workplace disputes such as age or race discrimination. It also does not apply to NDAs signed after a dispute arises.
​
If you have been the target of sexual misconduct in the workplace, click here to get in touch with Teukolsky Law. 

Lauren Teukolsky will sit on a panel on Saturday, December 3rd to discuss Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, a Supreme Court case that has changed the landscape of employment law. The program was organized by the Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA).  Ms. Teukolsky will be joined by a trio of widely respected arbitrators and mediators, the Honorable Amy D. Hogue, Monique Ngo-Bonnici, and Deborah Crandall Saxe, along with George S. Howard Jr., a partner at Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP.
​
The panelists will discuss the impact of Viking River on Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims, and share tips on litigating PAGA cases in arbitration.  Ms. Teukolsky has analyzed almost 80 post-Viking  trial court orders, and will share her insights on how courts have been ruling on motions to compel arbitration since June 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Viking.  She will also discuss several Court of Appeals decisions that have been handed down since Viking, and her predictions for how the California Supreme Court will rule in the highly anticipated Adoph v. Uber appeal, which will likely answer the question of PAGA standing addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Part IV of Viking.

Ms. Teukolsky previously discussed the implications of Viking River on a panel for CELA, a statewide organization that works to protect and expand the legal rights of workers, as well as for the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, the preeminent peer-selected organization of labor and employment lawyers in the United States.  She is also frequently cited in news publications for her commentary on developments in employment law, including a June Bloomberg Law article that features her commentary on Viking River. To learn more about Ms. Teukolsky’s experience, click here.

To register for the program, click here. 

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a Bloomberg Law article last week unpacking a wave of ongoing litigation prompted by Elon Musk’s mass layoffs at Twitter.

The layoffs began in early November, following Elon Musk’s $44 billion acquisition of the social media giant. After taking over, Musk proceeded to fire half of Twitter’s workforce, asked some essential employees to return, rolled back its expansive work-from-home policy, and called on the remaining employees to sign a pledge to remain at an “extremely hardcore” Twitter or quit.

Musk’s actions have prompted many of Twitter’s recently laid-off employees to pursue class action lawsuits against the company alleging violations of the Worker Readjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, a federal law, and its California equivalent, among other allegations. This, in turn, has led Twitter to require some employees to sign a release of legal claims against the company at the risk of not receiving severance pay, according to an amended complaint recently filed by ex-Twitter workers. Ex-Twitter workers have responded to Twitter’s move by requesting a protective order blocking the company from soliciting such releases and nullifying any it has already obtained.

The article states:

“The workers’ Nov. 9 request is based on a well-developed body of federal law analogous to the state law standards developed after a California appellate court’s 2009 ruling in Chindarah v. Pick Up Stix, Inc., said Lauren Teukolsky, a plaintiffs’ attorney with Teukolsky Law PC.

‘Many cases since Pick Up Stix have found releases to be invalid where the employer engaged in coercive or misleading tactics,’ Teukolsky said.”
​
To read the article in its entirety, click here.
​
If you have been affected by recent developments at Twitter, click here to get in touch with Teukolsky Law.