California lawmakers have introduced several labor bills for the 2025-2026 legislative session. Here is a breakdown of three significant bills:

S.B. 642 would amend the California Equal Pay Act to require employers to provide a more precise pay scale in job postings. The pay range must be within 10% above or below the mean pay rate for the position. By narrowing the pay range, the bill prevents employers from posting excessively wide salary estimates that could obscure actual pay disparities. Additionally, the bill adopts gender-neutral language to describe discriminatory compensation in violation of the Equal Pay Act.

A.B. 962 would prohibit employers from requiring employees to repay training or educational expenses if they choose to leave the job. These "stay-or-pay" contracts often impose financial penalties on low-income workers seeking better opportunities, effectively trapping them in their current positions limiting their mobility and ability to improve their working conditions.

S.B. 590 would extend eligibility for paid family leave to include care for a "designated person," defined as any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is equivalent to a family relationship. Employees can identify this person when filing a claim for benefits. By broadening the definition of family, the bill ensures that more workers can take time off to care for loved ones promoting inclusivity and overall well-being.

These proposed bills reflect California's commitment to a fairer work environment. Workers benefit from greater pay transparency, protection from exploitative contracts, and expanded leave options, while employers are encouraged to adopt more equitable and inclusive policies.​
​
For more on the latest developments in employment law, visit our blog here. If you believe your employer may have violated workplace laws, click here to get in touch with our office.

California’s new state law banning “captive audience” meetings took effect on January 1, 2025. Senate Bill 399 (S.B. 399) prevents California employers from forcing employees to attend meetings or listen to communications about the employer’s religious, political, or union views. The bill was sponsored by the Teamsters Union and authored by State Senator Aisha Wahab (Dem. - Sen. Dist. 10). Supporters of the law argue that it promotes fairness and equity. They reason that employers hold a disproportionate amount of power over their employees and should not be able to force their workers to attend political meetings with no relevance to their jobs. Employees effectively become a “captive audience,” fearful of retaliation and subject to coercion.

Opponents of the law, primarily business and commerce groups, have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 399. They argue that it infringes on an employer’s First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. They claim that the ban discriminates against the employer’s viewpoint and chills their speech on political subjects. In response, the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) released a legal memorandum defending the constitutionality of the ban. The AFL-CIO argues that the law constitutionally restricts an employer’s conduct – not speech – especially when aimed at a nonconsenting audience.

The legal future of S.B. 399 remains unclear. California’s state law mirrors similar laws enacted by states across the nation that have also faced legal challenges with mixed results. Further complicating matters, the Trump administration recently fired the chair of the NLRB rendering the Board without a quorum or the ability to issue new decisions. Trump is likely appoint a full slate of Republican Board members friendly to management and willing to overturn employee-friendly NLRB precedent prohibiting captive audience meetings. Simultaneously, on February 16, 2025, Trump’s appointee for the NLRB General Counsel, William B. Cowen, released a memorandum (GC 25-05) outlining the labor policy initiatives for Trump’s second term. Among the rollback of Biden-era practices, Cowen has rescinded guidance on the NLRB’s prior position supporting the ban on captive audience meetings. 
​
For more on the latest developments in employment law, visit our blog here. If you believe your employer may have violated workplace laws, click here to get in touch with our office.

Lauren Teukolsky is set to speak at the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s 45th annual Labor & Employment Law Section Symposium. The LACBA symposium will take place on Wednesday, March 19 at the Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.  Ms. Teukolsky will speak on a panel alongside Tritia Murata, Partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Cynthia Sandoval, mediator at Sandoval Mediation, and Todd Ratshin, Deputy Secretary of Enforcement at the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA).
​
The panel will discuss the changes made to Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) law in the past year, including the recent appellate decisions about “headless” PAGA cases, the introduction of the early evaluation conference process, the limitations on violations that plaintiffs can assert, and the greater number of violations that employers can cure. The panel will reflect on how these changes impact their work and approach to PAGA litigation. Speakers will also touch on the state of wage-and-hour laws ranging from healthcare workers’ minimum wage to protections for child social media influencers.

Ms. Teukolsky has worked to protect employees’ rights for over two decades and speaks regularly at conferences on employment law. Earlier this month, Ms. Teukolsky spoke at the  Berkeley Law School Conference on Gender Discrimination and Harassment Law about a new federal law that excludes sexual harassment claims from arbitration. She recently spoke about PAGA at the UCLA Law Women LEAD conference, and moderated a session at CELA’s (California Employment Lawyer Association) 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.

To register for the LACBA Symposium on March 19, click here.  If you believe you’ve been treated unlawfully in the workplace and want to get in touch with our office, click here.

​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 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 California Employment Lawyer’s Association (CELA) Leadership Conservatory training on Thursday, November 7 at Loews Coronado Bay Resort. CELA is a state-wide organization made up of over 1,200 attorneys who represent employees in employment cases and class actions. Ms. Teukolsky will speak on a panel titled, “Differing Leadership Styles,” and will discuss the importance of self-awareness and authenticity in becoming an effective leader. She will be speaking alongside CELA leaders Hugo Gamez and Glicel Sumagaysay, both attorneys at their own respective law offices.
 
Ms. Teukolsky has worked to protect employees’ rights for over two decades and regularly speaks at conferences on employment law. She is a Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, and previously served as Co-Chair of CELA’s Wage & Hour Committee.  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 learn more about Ms. Teukolsky and her practice, 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.

AB 1228 took effect on April 1, 2024, meaning fast-food workers across California are now subject to a new $20 minimum wage. Many of the state’s more than half a million fast-food workers will see their wages raised as a result.

AB 1228 was signed into law last fall by Governor Gavin Newsom. Proponents of the bill believe the new play floor is necessary in light of changes to the fast-food industry’s workforce. Whereas in the past fast-food workers were often teenagers trying to earn spending money, nowadays fast-food workers are largely adults trying to support their families. Despite California’s $16 minimum wage, the second highest in the nation, many of these workers still find themselves in search of additional jobs to make ends meet.

Critics of the bill, many of whom are franchise owners, have complained that the law will force them to lay off staff and pass on their increased costs to customers. However, researchers have found that, as California doubled its minimum wage over the past decade, wages increased without employment falling.
​
The new minimum wage increase will apply to restaurants offering limited or no table service and which are part of a national chain with at least 60 establishments nationwide, with some exemptions. The law also figures to increase the wages of those outside of the fast-food industry, as employers compete for employees that may now be attracted to the industry’s higher minimum wage. 

2023 was a big year for California’s state legislature. From crime and healthcare to housing and schools, California’s legislators passed a bevy of new laws, including many that will significantly impact workers. Though some of these laws won’t be effective for a few more months, many have already taken effect. We discuss the most significant ones below.

Crackdown Against Noncompete Agreements
California has long been a leader in the fight against noncompete agreements, which restrain worker mobility and suppress wages. With the passage of SB 699, however, the state has taken its fight to another level, making most noncompete agreements unenforceable “regardless of where and when the contract was signed” and “regardless of whether the contract was signed and the employment was maintained outside of California.”

In practice, this means that out-of-state companies intending to enforce noncompete agreements against employees or former employees seeking work in California will be unable to do so, barring some exceptions.

Unpaid Leave for Reproductive Losses
SB 848 allows California’s workers to take up to five days of unpaid leave following a “reproductive loss event.” The law defines such events as “the day or, for a multiple-day event, the final day of a failed adoption, failed surrogacy, miscarriage, stillbirth, or an unsuccessful assisted reproduction.” The law also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for taking reproductive loss leave.

More Paid Sick Leave
Due to the passage of SB 616, California’s workers now have the right to accrue and use up to five days (or 40 hours) of paid sick leave. The state’s workers were previously guaranteed a minimum of three paid sick leave days.

Protections for Cannabis Users
AB 2188 was actually passed after the 2022 legislative session but did not take effect until this month. The law prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of cannabis use “off the job and away from the workplace,” with some exceptions.

Similarly, a law from this past legislative session, SB 700, prohibits employers from requesting information from job applicants about their prior use of cannabis. The law also prohibits employers from using information obtained from an applicant’s criminal history about their prior cannabis use, with some exceptions. 

For more on the latest developments in employment law, visit our blog here. If you believe your employer may have violated workplace laws, click here to get in touch with our office. 

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.