​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 The reformed law, decades-long in the making, avoids a contentious ballot measure that would have repealed PAGA entirely if passed.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. 

Lauren Teukolsky’s commentary was featured this week in a Bloomberg Law article on a pending case before the California Supreme Court, Adoph v. Uber Techs, Inc. The case is being closely monitored by both employee-side and management-side attorneys because of its potential ramifications for PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) litigation.

In the case, California’s highest court will decide whether aggrieved employees maintain standing to bring “non-individual” PAGA claims against their employers on behalf of similarly aggrieved employees when their individual claims are sent to arbitration, a private, quasi-court forum that is favored by employers.

If the Court rules that such employees maintain their standing, it will clear the way for many employees to continue enforcing the state’s labor laws through PAGA, a 2004 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.

If the Court rules in Uber’s favor, the outlook for the state’s employees would not be so favorable. The Bloomberg Law article states:

“A ruling in favor of Uber allowing claims to be split into individual and non-individual components could make it more difficult to bring PAGA cases forward, said Lauren Teukolsky, a plaintiff’s lawyer and founder of Teukolsky Law in Pasadena, Calif.

‘It’s going to make PAGA litigation much more cumbersome,’ she said. Teukolsky expects the court to rule this summer or in early fall.”

Ms. Teukolsky also discussed why forcing employees to arbitrate claims is detrimental to them:

“Teukolsky said that arbitration comes at a cost for employees because they waive their civil rights, such as the right to a jury trial and the right to an appeal, when they are asked to sign an arbitration agreement,” the article states.

The case follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana in which a concurring opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that California courts should have the final say in whether employers can force arbitration for representative claims.

To read the article in its entirety, click here. 

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. 

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.

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. 

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a September 19th article by Bloomberg Law on AB 2188, a recently signed bill in California that prohibits employers from discriminating against workers who use cannabis in their off-work hours. Once the bill goes into effect on January 1, 2024, it will be illegal for California employers to make any employment decisions based on an employee’s use of cannabis “off the job and away from the workplace,” according to the law’s text.  This means, for example, that an employer may not fire an employee who used cannabis use when they were off the job and away from work.  Hiring decisions will be limited in this manner as well.

The law will not apply to workers in building and construction trades or those holding positions that require a federal background clearance. Also, the bill will not permit employees to possess, to be impaired by, or to use, cannabis on the job.

Governor Newsom’s signing of the bill represents a huge victory for many of California’s workers. Even though recreational cannabis has been legal in the state since 2018, and medicinal cannabis has been legal since 1996, California’s laws and cannabis testing technology are only just beginning to catch up. Standard drug tests still screen for substances in the body that may be present days or even weeks since an individual used cannabis. This means that, before AB 2188 takes effect, a worker or job applicant could still be fired or denied employment for having used cannabis during their own free time, weeks prior to any test being administered.

Some employer-side attorneys have suggested that AB 2188 inappropriately amends California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to afford cannabis users the same protections as minorities or other protected classes.  Ms. Teukolsky counters that notion.  As stated in the Bloomberg Law article:

“[D]iscipline against those who smoke or ingest marijuana disproportionately affects workers of color, said Lauren Teukolsky, who represents workers in court. It was one of the reasons Amazon.com Inc. stopped drug testing during the hiring process. The new law shielding marijuana consumers ‘is entirely consistent with FEHA’s aim of eliminating discrimination against people of color in the workplace,’ Teukolsky said in an email.”
​
To read the Bloomberg Law Article in its entirety, click here. If you believe your employer is behaving unlawfully and want to get in touch with Teukolsky Law, click here.