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 was quoted in a June 13 Law360 article discussing Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, a new case issued by the California Court of Appeal holding that employers may lawfully obtain prospective meal break waivers from their employees for shifts lasting 5-6 hours.
​
The state’s Labor Code requires employers to provide a 30-minute unpaid meal break for shifts longer than five hours or pay a penalty when breaks are not provided. Employees may forgo the break on shifts lasting six hours or less. In response, some employers have implemented blanket meal break waivers under which employees prospectively waive their right to a break on all future shifts lasting 5-6 hours. The question presented in Bradsbery was whether the employer may obtain a blanket waiver covering all future shifts, or whether the employer must obtain a waiver on a shift-by-shift basis. The court said that blanket waivers are permissible.

Ms. Teukolsky was quoted by Law360 explaining the real-world reasons a worker may choose to take or waive a break. “A worker might waive a meal break if they want to get through work faster,” she told Law360. “There may be some days that the employee really needs a break, especially if they're doing heavy lifting, manual labor, they work outside, they work in the Southern California sun. But other times, they might prefer to skip a meal break so they can leave work earlier, such as to pick up kids from school, run a personal errand or get to a second job.”

Some plaintiffs’ attorneys have argued that workers need to provide consent to waive a meal break daily. They raise concerns about the power imbalance between workers and employers that could lead workers to sign blanket waivers due to coercion or a lack of informed consent, especially if the employer requires the employee to sign the waiver as a condition of employment. Employers argue that it reduces the administrative burden of having workers sign a waiver every day.

Addressing the Bradsbery decision, Teukolsky noted that while the case touched on the validity of blanket waivers, it did not consider any argument that the waivers were unconscionable or obtained through coercion. “Because the unconscionability argument was not at issue in Bradsbery, this might not be the best case for the high court to take on the issue,” she said.

To read the Law360 article, click here. If you believe that you have not been paid proper wages or received lawful breaks, click here to get in touch with our office. 

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in an April 24 Bloomberg Law article on a string of appellate court rulings interpreting a 2022 law that exempts sexual harassment and assault claims from arbitration. President Biden signed the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (EFAA) into law on March 3, 2022, in response to the #MeToo movement. The law permits workers alleging a sexual assault or harassment dispute to keep their case in court, voiding any mandatory arbitration agreements. A growing number of employers have required workers to sign forced arbitration agreements as a condition of employment, pushing them into a discriminatory one-sided process.
​
Employers have fought to limit the EFAA’s applicability and scope, but courts have largely issued pro-employee rulings that keep a broad swath of claims out of arbitration.

For example, the Sixth Circuit recently ruled that workers may avoid arbitration for sexual misconduct occurring before EFAA’s effective date of March 3, 2022 if they filed a lawsuit after that date. This ruling follows pro-employee decisions in the Second, Third, and Eighth Circuits.

Bloomberg Law quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying, “Courts are defining the terms of the Act in an employee-friendly way to keep sexual harassment and assault claims out of arbitration.”

Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including sexual assault and harassment cases. Her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Daily Journal, Law360, Law.com, and the Los Angeles Times.

These appellate decisions represent victories for workers who have suffered from sexual assault and harassment. To read the Bloomberg Law article, click here. If you believe you have faced sexual assault or harassment at work, or have questions about arbitration, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

President Donald Trump’s recent attacks on the National Relations Labor Board (NLRB) have disrupted the Board’s operations. The quasi-judicial body traditionally consists of five board members appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. But recently, partisan congressional gridlock in the Senate stalled replacements for two Board member vacancies. Since Trump assumed office on January 10, 2025, his directives and firings have forced the Board to further undergo a chaotic restructuring of its remaining three board members. 

On his first day in office, Trump appointed current member Marvin E. Kaplan to be the Board chairman, and later fired Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox. The NLRB needs at least three Board members to establish a quorum, but without Ms. Wilcox, the Board only has two members.

A growing concern is that Trump’s true intent is to paralyze the functioning of the NLRB. Without a quorum, the NLRB is unable to issue new decisions or respond to appeals, which benefits employers. Companies who receive adverse rulings from Administrative Law  Judge can simply appeal to the quorum-less NLRB. The Board is without power to review the charge, meaning it would remain in limbo indefinitely. Meanwhile, employers may simply continue business as usual.

Wilcox filed a lawsuit alleging her firing was unlawful. A federal judge agreed, ordering her reinstatement. But a federal appeals court stayed the order reinstating her, signaling it intends to rule in Trump’s favor.
​
It’s likely that the Supreme Court will weigh in on this issue. The case will test the Supreme Court’s willingness to reign in Trump’s power. The Supreme Court historically upheld job removal protections for agency officials under the 90-year-old precedent Humphrey’s Executor. The Court has recently started chipping away at the ruling but has yet to outright overrule the precedent. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump it could mean dramatic changes to almost all administrative agencies. 

​Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the March 2025 edition of the CLA California Labor and Employment Law Review. Her column describes two recent decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States and California’s appellate court that affect wage-and-hour law.

Ms. Teukolsky’s column discusses a new U.S. Supreme Court opinion about an employer’s required burden of proof to classify workers as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The column also discusses Leeper v Shipt, a recent California appellate decision addressing the “headless” PAGA phenomenon. The court held that a PAGA plaintiff may not disclaim individual relief to avoid arbitration. On February 26, a different California appellate panel criticized Leeper, holding that “headless” PAGA cases are permitted. Ms. Teukolsky predicts the California Supreme Court will soon address “headless” PAGA cases given the split of authority.

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.