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 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.

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 UCLA Law Women LEAD Leadership Summit on Friday, September 27th. UCLA Law Women LEAD is an inclusive, intersectional community of UCLA Law women who aid each other in life and career. The group is hosting the Leadership Summit’s tenth anniversary which brings UCLA Law professors, alumni, and students from around the world to discuss important topics in the law. Ms. Teukolsky will speak on a panel discussing how to assess, litigate, and triumph in PAGA litigation after AB 2288 and SB 92. She will speak alongside Emily Gould Sullivan, Vice President of Legal at Ross Stores, Inc., and Tritia Murata, Partner at David Wright Termaine LLP.
 
Ms. Teukolsky has previously discussed the impact of these bills on PAGA litigation in a Bloomberg Law article . She is a frequent speaker on employment law topics. 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. She has spoken a number of times on PAGA, including for the California Lawyers Association, CELA, the Alameda County Bar Association and Beverly Hills Bar Association. Her commentary on the effects of the California Supreme Court decision Adolph v. Uber on PAGA claims was also featured in articles by Bloomberg Law and Law.com.
 
Ms. Teukolsky’s panel starts at 1:25 pm PT at UCLA’s Schoenberg Hall. To register for the Leadership Summit, 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 was recently quoted in a Bloomberg Law article about the new PAGA reform package passed by the California Legislature in early July 2024. The package represents a compromise between businesses and labor groups that aims to strengthen worker protections while allowing employers to cure violations and face lower penalties. The reformed law, decades-long in the making, avoids a contentious ballot measure that would have repealed PAGA entirely if passed.

Several measures of the reform package benefit workers.  If a PAGA plaintiff recovers penalties for Labor Code violations, aggrieved employees get to keep 35% of the penalties, up from 25% under the previous law.  As before, the remainder of penalties are paid to the State.  Workers are also authorized to seek injunctive relief (i.e., a court order to require an employer to stop an unlawful practice), a remedy not authorized by the previous law. 

Other measures favor employers. Subject to limited exceptions, employees are now permitted to seek penalties only for Labor Code violations they have actually suffered.  Previously, an employee who suffered one type of violation could file a PAGA suit on behalf of other employees for any violation of the Labor Code.

A crucial aspect of the PAGA reform package is the early evaluation conference, theoretically aimed at reducing litigation length and costs. Now, large employers with more than 100 employees can request an early evaluation conference which halts ongoing litigation until a neutral third party assess the plaintiff’s claims, the company’s efforts to comply with the Labor Code, and plans to cure violations. Smaller employers may access a similar process through the Labor and Workforce Development Agency.  If employers can demonstrate they have cured the violations, PAGA penalties may be capped.

PAGA practitioners and courts will need to grapple with setting up early evaluation conferences in the months to come.  The reform package does not dictate how courts are supposed to implement the early evaluation program, leading PAGA practitioners like Ms. Teukolsky to wonder how courts with limited resources will implement such programs, especially in the face of recent budget cuts that have slashed court services. 

The Bloomberg article quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying,  “While courts that frequently handle PAGA lawsuits, like Los Angeles Superior Court, probably will establish high functioning evaluation programs, it’s less clear what will happen with smaller courts that don’t see as much of that kind of litigation.”   

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.

​Earlier this month, Bloomberg Law quoted Lauren Teukolsky in an article about the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services.  The case involved a security guard who was provided with on-duty meal breaks.  After Spectrum fired him for leaving his post for a meal break, Naranjo sued for missed meal break premiums.  He sought an hour of premium pay for each day he missed a break.  After many years of litigation, the California Supreme Court held in a 2022 decision that Naranjo was permitted to seek penalties under Labor Code 226, which requires employers to provide accurate pay stubs listing all wages earned in a pay period.  Spectrum’s failure to list premium pay for missed breaks could entitle Naranjo to 226 penalties if Spectrum’s violation was “knowing and intentional.”

In the most recent California Supreme Court decision, issued on May 7, 2024, the Court held that Spectrum’s violations were not “knowing and intentional” because it reasonably believed in good faith that it had a defense to the requirement to pay missed meal premiums. 

The Court held that “if an employer reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing a complete and accurate wage statement in compliance with the requirements of section 226, then it has not knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with the wage statement law.” Going forward, employees will likely need to prove one of three things to recover 226 penalties: (1) the employer’s failure to report wages or hours on a pay stub was made in bad faith; (2) the employer’s defense was objectively unreasonable; or (3) the employer’s defense was unsupported by any evidence. 

In the Bloomberg Law article, Ms. Teukolsky discusses the significance of the ruling for California’s workers:

“The ruling isn’t ‘a death sentence’ for the ability of workers to recoup California wage and hour penalties, but it does place ‘a slightly higher burden on plaintiffs who want to recover those penalties,’ said Pasadena-based employee-side attorney Lauren Teukolsky.”
​
The article continues:

“’I don’t think it signals a shift in thinking among the California Supreme Court,’ Teukolsky said. ‘I view it as an incremental change in the standards that govern the imposition of penalties under California law. It’s not a sea change.’

Bloomberg Law’s article also includes thoughts from Ms. Teukolsky on how plaintiff-side employment attorneys will need to adapt to the Court’s ruling. Naranjo’s potential impact on PAGA claims is also discussed. 

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 Law360, Law.com, and the Los Angeles Times. Most recently, Ms. Teukolsky was quoted in a February Bloomberg Law article on the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC.
​
To read Bloomberg Law’s article in its entirety, click here. To get in touch with our office, click here. 

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a Wednesday Bloomberg Law article about a recent Ninth Circuit opinion that discuss the effects of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber on PAGA cases proceeding in federal court.  The Ninth Circuit ruled that federal courts are bound to follow the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of PAGA standing, and do not need to follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s mistaken interpretation of PAGA standing in its 2022 Viking River Cruises decision.

In the Circuit Court’s decision, Judge Kenneth Kiyul Lee stated in his concurring opinion that arbitration proceedings under PAGA may not constitute a “full and fair opportunity to litigate,” thus offering a potential exception to arbitration proceedings’ preclusive effect on their associated court proceedings. In other words, if an employer were to receive a worker-friendly ruling from an arbitrator, that ruling may not have bearing on the analogous issues the employer is litigating in court.

How much of an effect Judge Lee’s opinion will have on California’s employment law landscape is still unclear. In Bloomberg Law’s article, Ms. Teukolsky says that the state’s appeals courts are still divided on the issue and have yet to “’squarely’” consider whether individual PAGA arbitration findings will impact group PAGA claims.

“’It’s too soon,’” Ms. Teukolsky says in the article.

The article also includes Ms. Teukolsky’s commentary on how Judge Lee’s opinion might be interpreted for the benefit of workers:

“The logic in Lee’s concurring opinion could also help claimants wield the ‘full and fair opportunity to litigate’ argument against adverse arbitration findings when their group PAGA claims unfold in court, Teukolsky said.”
​
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 learn more about Ms. Teukolsky’s practice and get in touch with the firm, click here. 

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. 

Last week, Bloomberg Law cited research by Lauren Teukolsky in an article about oral arguments in Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc., a pivotal Supreme Court case that was sent back to the California Court of Appeal for further action. The appellate court’s decision could have vast repercussions for lawsuits brought under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).  

Since SCOTUS’s Viking River decision, Ms. Teukolsky’s research shows that California courts have consistently rejected employer arguments that representative PAGA claims must be dismissed once the “individual” component of the plaintiff’s PAGA claim has been sent to arbitration. Bloomberg Law’s article states:

“California 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 APC. Bloomberg Law independently reviewed those decisions.” 

Ms. Teukolsky’s updated numbers show an even greater trend in favor of employees.

Viking River and the fate of PAGA have been on the forefront of labor and employment experts’ minds for the past several years. In addition to her commentary on the issue for news outlets such as Bloomberg Law and the Daily Journal, Ms. Teukolsky has also 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.

To read the article on Bloomberg Law, click here. To get in touch with Teukolsky Law, click here.