Lauren Teukolsky was recently quoted in a Daily Journal article and a Bloomberg Law article about a recent 2nd District Court of Appeal opinion halting the growing trend of “headless” PAGA cases. The Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA) permits employees to act as deputies of the state and bring a suit on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees to enforce the Labor Code. A “headless” PAGA case is one in which the plaintiff disclaims all individual claims and seek PAGA penalties solely on behalf of other aggrieved employees. Plaintiffs typically engage in this practice to avoid mandatory arbitration of individual claims and the resulting delay in their PAGA case.

This practice grew in popularity after the California Court of Appeals issued Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting in April 2024, holding that workers who disclaim their individual claims can still bring a group PAGA action on behalf of other aggrieved employees. But in December 2024, a different division of the California Court of Appeals ruled in Leeper v. Shipt that a PAGA action on behalf of others necessarily includes an individual PAGA claim for the plaintiff, and the individual claim can be compelled to arbitration while the PAGA claim remains stayed in court.

The Daily Journal quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying if Leeper remains good law, “it is the end of the headless PAGA case.” She adds that, “there’s going to be a huge wave of defendants fling motions for reconsideration of lower court decisions that have allowed such lawsuits to proceed.” Bloomberg Law noted Ms. Teukolsky’s analysis of twenty post-Balderas court orders found that a majority denied motions to compel arbitration based on Balderas. She noted that “Given the sheer number of cases involving the headless PAGA issue, it seems likely that other courts of appeal will weigh in, and eventually the California Supreme Court will take one of these cases to clarify the law.”
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 Daily Journal article, click here.  To read the Bloomberg Law 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.

In 2024, California’s appeals courts handed three victories to workers relying on the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) to keep their sexual harassment and assault cases out of arbitration. President Biden signed the law on March 3, 2022.  It permits workers alleging a sexual assault or harassment claim to keep their case in court, voiding any mandatory arbitration agreements. Employers have increasingly required employees to sign arbitration agreements at the outset of employment, forcing those workers into a discriminatory one-sided process.

Arbitration is plagued with unresolved problems. Arbitrators are primarily white and male, far less diverse than juries in major metropolitan areas. The two largest employment arbitration organizations in the U.S. have reported data showing that 88% of their arbitrators are white and 77% are male. Further, arbitration is a largely secretive process with unclear rules and little oversight. This effectively silences victims of sexual assault and harassment. Forced arbitration agreements are widespread and currently cover 56% of all non-union private sector employees. A 2018 study done by the Economic Policy Institute found that mandatory arbitration is common in low-wage workplaces and in industries disproportionately comprised of women and African Americans.  

The EFAA provides much-needed relief because it makes arbitration agreements in sexual harassment cases unenforceable, permitting workers to keep their case in court. Predictability, since EFAA’s passage, employers have fought vigorously to limit the law’s applicability and scope. Fortunately, they have had limited success in California.

In two recent decisions, Doe v. Second Street Corp., 105 Cal. App. 5th 552 (2024), and Liu v. Miniso, 105 Cal. App. 5th 791 (2024), the California Court of Appeal broadly interpreted EFAA’s arbitration ban, holding that the EFAA exempts a plaintiff’s entire case from arbitration so long as the employee asserts at least one claim of sexual harassment or assault.  In both cases, the court rejected employers’ argument that only sexual harassment or assault claims should stay in court, but unrelated claims should be arbitrated. However, the EFAA plainly states that arbitration agreements are unenforceable with respect to a plaintiff’s “case,” not just a “claim.” If Congress intended for the law to exempt only specific claims, it would have crafted the law to state as much. 
On November 15, 2024, the employer in the Liu case filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, but it is unclear whether the state’s highest court will take up the appeal or wait for more appellate courts to weigh in. 

In Kader v. S. California Med. Ctr., Inc., 99 Cal. App. 5th 214 (2024), the California Court of Appeal similarly handed a win to an employee who relied on EFAA to keep his case out of arbitration. The plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement while he was experiencing harassment, but before he filed a lawsuit. The employer argued that the EFAA applies only to arbitration agreements signed before the underlying sexual harassment occurs, also known as “predispute” arbitration agreements.  The court rejected the employer’s argument, holding instead that a “dispute” arises for purposes of EFAA only when the parties take adversarial positions on an asserted right or claim.  In this case, the “dispute” arose only when the plaintiff  filed a harassment charge with the State’s civil rights agency, rendering the arbitration agreement he signed before then unenforceable.
​
These three decisions represent victories for workers who have suffered from sexual assault and harassment who want to avail themselves of California’s robust public court system.  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.

Lauren Teukolsky was recently quoted in a Bloomberg article about the increasing use by California employees of “headless” PAGA cases to avoid being forced to arbitrate their wage-and-hour claims. The Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA) permits employees to act as deputies of the state and bring a suit on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees to enforce the Labor Code.  In 2022, the United State Supreme Court ruled that employers may not require employees to waive PAGA claims via a mandatory arbitration agreement.  But the Court also ruled that employers can require employees to split their “individual PAGA claim” from the claim on behalf of others, and to arbitrate the individual claim.

​A headless PAGA case is one in which the plaintiff disclaims all individual claims, including the individual PAGA claim, and files the lawsuit to seek PAGA penalties solely on behalf of other aggrieved employees.  This strategy was galvanized after the California Court of Appeals issued Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting in April 2024, holding that workers who disclaim their individual claims can still bring a group PAGA action on behalf of other aggrieved employees.  While Balderas was not about arbitration, several plaintiffs’ lawyers have seized on the holding of the case to file headless PAGA cases in an effort to stay out of arbitration. 

​As stated in the Bloomberg article, Ms. Teukolsky’s analysis of 20 post-Balderas orders reveals that the majority of trial courts are following Balderas and permitting PAGA plaintiffs who disclaim individual claims to avoid arbitration.  A small but significant minority are distinguishing Balderas and still requiring PAGA plaintiffs to arbitrate their “aggrieved employee” status.  The Bloomberg article quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying, “Given this split, I anticipate we will see more decisions from the Court of Appeals in the next year or two about whether a PAGA plaintiff can stay out of arbitration by disclaiming all individual claims.”

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.

Lauren Teukolsky will speak at the Sixth Annual CLE Conference on Gender Discrimination and Harassment Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law. The conference is on Thursday, January 23, 2025, and Friday, January 24, 2025. Berkeley’s Center on Comparative Equality and Anti-Discrimination Law is hosting  the conference, which will explore new developments in gender discrimination and harassment law in California and other jurisdictions. Ms. Teukolsky is scheduled to speak on forced arbitration of employment claims, alongside David Lowe, a Partner at Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe, and Steve Tindall, a Partner at Gibbs Law Group. Topics covered will include a new federal law excluding sexual harassment and sexual assault claims from arbitration (the “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021”), and recent cases that interpret its scope. 

​Ms. Teukolsky has worked to protect employees’ rights for over two decades and regularly speaks at conferences on employment law. Last September, Ms. Teukolsky was selected to moderate a session at CELA’s (California Employment Lawyer Association) 36th Annual Employment Law Conference on individual wage-and-hour arbitrations. 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.

Ms. Teukolsky’s panel takes place on Friday, January 24, 2025, at 1:30 PM PT at The International House in Berkeley. To register for the conference, 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 will speak on an October 26th panel at the California Lawyers Association’s (CLA) 13th Annual Advanced Wage and Hour Conference. The panel will explore the effects of Viking River Cruises and Adolph v Uber on the legal landscape, particularly with respect to wage-and-hour arbitrations. Ms. Teukolsky will represent the plaintiff’s perspective while co-panelist Jason Kearnaghan, a partner at Sheppard Mullin, will represent the defendant’s views.

The two panelists will explain how to draft and attack arbitration agreements, how to arbitrate individual PAGA claims, and the upsides and downsides of wage-and-hour arbitration for plaintiffs and defendants, among other topics.

Ms. Teukolsky regularly discusses the latest employment law developments at conferences and panels. In September and October, Ms. Teukolsky shared insights on Viking River Cruises and Adolph v Uber for a trio of talks hosted by the Alameda County Bar Association, the Beverly Hills Bar Association, and the California Lawyers Association. Her commentary on the two cases has also been featured in articles by the Daily Journal, Bloomberg Law and Law.com.

CLA is a nonprofit, voluntary bar association serving thousands of licensed attorneys throughout California. Its Labor and Employment Law Section serves as a networking and educational forum for California’s labor and employment lawyers and non-lawyers with an interest in the field. 
​
To register for CLA’s 13th Annual Advanced Wage and Hour Conference, click here. For more information about Teukolsky Law, click here. 

Last Saturday was the deadline for California Governor Gavin Newsom to either sign or veto the roughly 1,000 bills that made it to his desk. Below is a recap of some of the most notable employment bills that the Governor signed or vetoed.

Higher Minimum Wages
Governor Newsom signed a pair of bills, AB 1228 and SB 525, that set higher minimum wages for workers in the fast food and healthcare industries. Under AB 1228, fast-wood workers’ minimum wage will be bumped to $20 an hour in April. Hundreds of thousands of healthcare workers in the state will see their minimum wage eventually increased to $25 an hour under SB 525.

Employers Lose a Delay Tactic
SB 365 allows employment lawsuit proceedings to move forward, rather than pause, when defendants appeal orders denying a request to compel arbitration. Governor Newsom signed the bill, effectively undercutting a tactic that sometimes-allowed employers to delay cases for years at a time.

More Paid Sick Days
Starting next year, California’s workers will be entitled to at least five days of paid sick leave, up from the current minimum of three days, as a result of Governor Newsom signing  SB 616.

Family Caregiver bill Nixed
In a defeat for employees, the Governor vetoed AB 524, a bill that would have added “family caregiver status” to the list of protected characteristics that employers cannot consider when making employment decisions such as hiring and firing.

No Unemployment Benefits while on Strike
SB 799 would have allowed  workers to collect unemployment insurance benefits while on strike. Governor Newsom vetoed the bill, citing the multi-billion-dollar debt that California’s unemployment insurance program incurred to keep benefits flowing during the pandemic.
​
To see what other important employment bills were signed and vetoed by the Governor, click here. 

Lauren Teukolsky was selected to moderate a session at CELA’s (California Employment Lawyer Association) upcoming 36th Annual Employment Law Conference. The session is titled, “Arbitrating Wage & Hour Cases from Start to Finish,” and will address strategies for plaintiff-side employment attorneys to pursue in wage-and-hour arbitrations. At the session, Ms. Teukolsky will guide a conversation with Amy Semmel, a mediator and arbitrator at Semmel ADR, Steven Tindall, a partner at Gibbs Law Group LLP, and Jason Whooper, Managing Attorney at W Law.

CELA is a statewide organization that works to protect and expand the legal rights of workers through litigation, education, and advocacy. Their annual employment law conferences provide days-long arrays of educational sessions and talks in addition to serving as networking forums for California’s plaintiff-side employment attorneys. This year’s conference is in San Francisco and will begin on Thursday, September 28th. The conference will conclude on Friday, September 30th.

Ms. Teukolsky has worked to protect employees’ rights for over two decades and regularly speaks at events and panels on employment law. Most recently, Ms. Teukolsky appeared on a pair of panels hosted by the Alameda County Bar Association and Beverly Hills Bar Association. 
​
To learn more about Ms. Teukolsky’s practice, click here. For more information on CELA’s 36th Annual Employment Law Conference and a complete schedule of its sessions, click here. 

Thursday, September 14th marked the deadline for California’s two legislative bodies – the state assembly and state senate – to pass bills. Bills passed by both bodies will now head to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk, where the governor will have one month to determine which bills to sign into law.

The employment bills Mr. Newsom will consider for approval run the gamut, from legislation on caregiver discrimination to bills increasing paid sick days. Below is a recap of the bills at the governor’s desk that figure to have the greatest impact on California’s workers if approved.

Family Caregiver Discrimination – AB 524 
AB 524 would amend the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by adding “family caregiver status” to the list of protected characteristics that employers cannot take into account when making employment decisions such as hiring and firing.

Consideration of this bill comes at a critical time. Caregivers are the fastest growing workplace identity group and may make up us much as 73% of the American workforce. More than 63 million Americans care for at least one child, and 40.4 million Americans provide unpaid care to someone aged 65 years or older. The pandemic’s aftermath and America’s rapidly aging population have only exacerbated the challenges faced by caregivers.

Arbitration Appeal Delays – SB 365
When trial courts find that a forced arbitration agreement is invalid, employers frequently use delay tactics, such as filing an appeal, that can effectively pause a case for years at a time. If signed into law, SB 365 would undercut such tactics and allow employment lawsuits to move forward when defendants file appeals involving a petition to compel arbitration. 

WARN Act Expansion – AB 1356 
California’s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act protects employees by requiring employers to give a 60-day notice to affected employees before a plant closing or mass layoff. AB 1356 would expand the WARN Act’s protections by requiring employers to provide employees with 75 days of advance notice. It would also prohibit employers from requiring employees to waive their rights by signing onerous severance agreements with releases and non-disparagement provisions in exchange for the payment of back wages.  The bill was inspired by the massive layoffs at tech companies like Google and Meta, particularly Elon Musk’s alleged mishandling of layoffs at the company formerly known as Twitter.

Additional Paid Sick Days- SB 616
SB 616 would require California’s employers to provide workers with five days of paid sick leave instead of the current allotment of three. Increasing the number of paid sick will reduce the frequency at which workers, particularly low-income workers, are forced to make difficult decisions between foregoing pay and going to work sick. If signed into law, the bill is also expected to strengthen public health protections. According to the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, “paid sick leave guarantees are seen by many public health experts as one of the strongest tools in stopping the spread of infectious diseases.”

For a list of other employment bills heading to Mr. Newsom’s desk, click here. The governor will have until October 14th to sign bills from this year’s legislative session into law.

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted by Bloomberg Law and Law.com in a pair of articles this week on the CA Supreme Court’s Monday decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.. In the highly anticipated ruling, the Court held that the state’s workers could continue to pursue representative PAGA labor claims even if their individual labor claims were forced into arbitration. The Court’s ruling is considered a huge win for California’s workers.

PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) is a state law that authorizes employees to collect civil penalties for violations against themselves and their coworkers on behalf of California’s Labor Commissioner, which has struggled to manage a backlog of cases for the past several decades.

Arbitration is a private dispute resolution process that overwhelmingly favors employers and shields corporations from public scrutiny and accountability. Employers frequently require their employees to sign agreements stipulating that all claims made by them will be resolved in private arbitration as opposed to being litigated through the courts, a process that is public and more favorable to workers.

A ruling in Uber’s favor would have made it very difficult to bring PAGA cases forward – due to the prevalence of arbitration agreements – and would have seriously eroded workers’ ability to enforce the state’s labor laws.

Uber’s lawyers have indicated that the company is considering appealing the Court’s decision. According to analysis Ms. Teukolsky published on LinkedIn, the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to hear such an appeal, especially in light of its 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana.  She said, “It's unlikely SCOTUS will hear a case from a state supreme court involving entirely state-law issues; there must a federal question involved.”

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 access the Bloomberg Law article in its entirety, click here. To access the Law.com article in its entirety, click here. 

​Lauren Teukolsky’s commentary was featured in a recent Law360 article on the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling that California’s A.B. 51 is preempted by federal law.  AB 51 prohibited employers from forcing employees to give up their civil rights, such as the right to a jury trial and the right to appeal an adverse decision, as a condition of employment.  The ruling, a reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s own prior decision in 2021, is a significant blow to the state’s workers.

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed A.B. 51 into law in 2019, making it illegal for employers to force individuals to waive their right to bring civil rights cases in court as a condition of employment. Arbitration agreements typically stipulate that all claims made by workers—regardless of their severity—must be resolved under private arbitration, a process that overwhelmingly favors employers, disproportionately harms historically marginalized communities, and shields corporations from public scrutiny and accountability. A.B. 51 was meant to ensure that employees were not coerced into signing away their rights, and that all waivers of these significant rights were voluntary.

Last year, a three judge Ninth Circuit panel voted to revisit a 2021 decision in which it partially reversed an injunction that stopped California from enforcing A.B. 51. Last month, the panel found that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted A.B. 51, nullifying the law in most situations and allowing California’s corporations to once again force workers to sign arbitration agreements waiving their civil rights.

Law360’s article features analysis and advice from management-side and workers- side attorneys on how corporations and workers’ advocates should respond to the Ninth Circuit’s decision. In the article, Ms. Teukolsky advises plaintiffs’ lawyers to be extremely cautious when advising clients on arbitration agreements:

"’Plaintiff-side employment attorneys need to think very carefully before they advise an employee to refuse to sign one of these arbitration agreements,’ Teukolsky said. ‘I think you need to advise them: you may lose your job over this. Is that a risk you're willing to take?’"  Ms. Teukolsky speaks from experience: she filed one of the only cases under A.B. 51 after her client was fired for expressing opposition to signing away her rights.
​
To read the article in its entirety, click here. For the Court’s opinion holding that A.B. 51 is preempted, click here.
​
If you have concerns about an arbitration agreement your employer has recently asked you to sign, click here to get in touch with our office.