Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a May 9 Bloomberg Law article on the growing split among federal district courts over how to interpret the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (EFAA). The 2022 law protects workers alleging sexual harassment or assault from mandatory arbitration agreements. More employers are requiring their employees to submit to forced arbitration proceedings as a condition of employment. Yet, mandatory arbitration is often described as a discriminatory one-sided process favoring employers. EFAA solves this problem by voiding arbitration agreements allowing employees to pursue their sexual harassment claims in court.

The debate among district courts is centered on the pleading standard required for the law to apply. Either workers must plead “plausible” claims that are supported by detailed factual allegations or simply a lower standard of “non-frivolous” claims. Employers maintain that the higher threshold of “plausibility” for pleadings stops employees from bringing false or meritless claims to court. Some plaintiff-side lawyers have argued that employers are raising an improper defense by challenging the sufficiency of a worker’s pleadings when the real focus should be on the question of arbitration.
​
Bloomberg Law quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying that motions to dismiss or strike a claim are the proper “procedural mechanisms that defendants are supposed to use if they think that the allegations of a complaint are insufficient.”  

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.
​
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.

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.

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in an April 18 Daily Journal article on the California Supreme Court’s grant of review in Leeper v Shipt. The case involves the legality of so-called “headless” PAGA cases in which the plaintiff disclaims all individual relief and asserts only claims on behalf of other aggrieved employees. The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) deputizes employees to bring a lawsuit to enforce the Labor Code on behalf of the state. Plaintiffs are using the “headless” PAGA tactic in an effort to avoid forced arbitration: while employers often seek to compel individual PAGA claims to arbitration, they typically want the claim on behalf of others to remain in court. If headless cases are permitted, plaintiffs can avoid arbitration altogether.

Recent court rulings have put this strategy into question. In Leeper, the intermediate appellate court held that a PAGA claim necessarily includes an individual claim. If the Supreme Court affirms Leeper, PAGA plaintiffs will no longer be permitted to bring headless PAGA cases to avoid arbitration. On April 22, the California Court of Appeal issued another decision holding that headless PAGA cases are not permitted, relying on Leeper.

Two other Court of Appeal decisions hold that headless PAGA cases are permitted, demonstrating the deepening split on this issue among California’s judges. In one of those cases, Rogriguez v Packers Sanitation, a petition for review is currently pending before the Supreme Court. Given the overlap of issues, the Court will likely grant review.

Interestingly, neither party in Leeper asked the Supreme Court for review. Instead, the Court granted review on its own motion, and deemed the plaintiff the appealing party. The Court certified two questions on appeal to be briefed and argued. First, does every PAGA claim include individual and non-individual claims regardless of what the complaint actually alleges? Second, can a plaintiff choose to only bring representative PAGA claims?
​
The Daily Journal quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying, “It's going to be the next big PAGA case before the state Supreme Court.” Earlier this year, Ms. Teukolsky predicted the California Supreme Court would weigh in to clarify this issue given the confusion in the lower courts. 

​On January 24, 2025, Lauren Teukolsky spoke at the Sixth Annual CLE Conference on Gender Discrimination and Harassment Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Berkeley’s Center on Comparative Equality and Anti-Discrimination Law hosted the conference, which explored new developments in gender discrimination and harassment law in California and other jurisdictions. Ms. Teukolsky spoke 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. Ms. Teukolsky contributed an article for the conference discussing a federal law that became effective in March 2022 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. 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’ve been treated unlawfully in the workplace and want to get in touch with our office, click here.

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.