Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a January 14 Bloomberg Law article about recent developments surrounding the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), a California law that permits employees to stand in the shoes of the state to enforce provisions of the Labor Code on behalf of an entire workforce.

A growing number of employers require workers to sign mandatory arbitration agreements, forcing workers into a private court system that deprives them of a judge and jury. Employers also may require employees to waive their right to bring class action lawsuits through a mandatory arbitration agreement. However, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2022 that employers may not require employees to waive their right to bring a PAGA action through an arbitration agreement.  Several important pending lawsuits will define the scope of PAGA, and whether workers must arbitrate some aspects of their PAGA claims. 

Bloomberg law quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying, “Defendants are trying to figure out ways to send pieces of [PAGA] cases to arbitration to narrow them and to slow them down.” She also noted that when aspects of PAGA cases are sent to arbitration, the effect of an arbitrator’s ruling on the PAGA claim pending in court is “still an open question.”

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.

California passed AB 288, dubbed the “NLRB Fill-In” Law, that allows the state to fill in the gaps of federal agencies that are unwilling or unable to act. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was gutted by Trump early last year, leaving the board without a quorum necessary to handle the growing backlog of labor disputes. The NLRB Fill-In law would have allowed the state’s labor board to take over cases when the NLRB takes too long to make decisions or remains quorumless.

A federal district court recently blocked the most important parts of this law. The judge ruled that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which created the NLRB, preempts any California law. The court explained that California cannot simply take over federal responsibilities just because the state thinks the federal agency is moving too slowly or lacks independence. To keep labor rules consistent across the nation, the court decided that the federal government must maintain exclusive authority over private-sector labor issues. However, the court left some parts of the law intact, but only when the NLRB explicitly declines jurisdiction or workers lose coverage under the federal agency.

Lauren 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.

​If you would like to speak with her about an employment matter, click here. For our previous coverage on AB 288, click here. 

Starting January 1, 2026, California workers will be protected by several new laws. In Part 2 of our 2026 employment law update, we discuss two new laws that now cover California workers.

Senate Bill 294, The Workplace Know Your Rights Act, requires all California employers to provide an annual written notice to employees that outlines their rights. The notice must cover an employee’s constitutional rights, protections against unfair immigration-related practices, workers’ compensation benefits (including disability pay), and medical care for injuries sustained on the job.

A key provision of SB 294 is the requirement for employers to offer an emergency contact designation. By March 30, 2026, employers must allow workers to name a specific person to be notified if the worker is arrested or detained at the worksite or during work hours. This measure was developed in response to workplace immigration enforcement actions, which often left families unaware of a worker’s whereabouts.

Assembly Bill 250 establishes a "revival window" from January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2027, allowing survivors of sexual assault to file civil lawsuits even if the original statute of limitations has expired. This law permits survivors to seek damages for past incidents provided they can allege that a liable party actively engaged in a "cover-up" to conceal the misconduct. By defining a cover-up to include the use of restrictive non-disclosure agreements or the failure to investigate prior complaints, AB 250 significantly increases legal exposure for companies that have historically protected abusers from accountability in the workplace.

Lauren 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.

 If you believe you have experienced a legal violation at work, click here to get in touch with our office. 

Starting January 1, 2026, California workers will be protected by several new laws. In Part 1 of our 2026 employment law update, we discuss three new laws that are set to take effect in the new year.
​
SB 648 makes tips and gratuities the sole property of the employee. Tips cannot be deducted, withheld, or taken from workers who earn them. The law also creates a new enforcement mechanism for the California labor commissioner to prosecute tip and gratuity claims. Previously, while the labor commissioner could investigate wage theft, they lacked the authority to issue direct citations for tip violations. Effective January 1, 2026, SB 648 closes this gap, allowing the labor commissioner to issue citations and file civil actions against employers for unlawful tip practices.

SB 513 expands the definition of “personnel records” to include training documentation. California law already requires employers to provide employees with their personnel files on request. Historically, however, employers have not disclosed records of safety certification or specialized software training, making it difficult for workers to prove their qualifications to future employers.  Now, employers are required to give a copy of all education and training documentation to employees upon request. The documents must include the trainer’s name, the duration of the training, and the "core competencies" gained.

SB 617 strengthens the California WARN Act by requiring employers to disclose whether they plan to coordinate transition services to workers during mass layoffs or relocations. In their 60-day notice of an impending layoff, employers must include detailed information about CalFresh, specific contact info for local job centers, and detailed information regarding any efforts to coordinate job placement with local workforce boards.

Stay tuned for part 2 of our series, which will discuss additional new laws going into effect in 2026.

Lauren 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.

 If you believe you have a wage-and-hour claim, click here to get in touch with our office. 

The California Court of Appeal recently issued a significant decision in Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center, ruling that the "ministerial exception" does not shield religious organizations from minimum wage lawsuits. The case involved Annette Lorenzo, a former staff member at the San Francisco Sōtō Zen Buddhist church. Lorenzo performed religious duties, such as meditation and temple cleaning, but she also performed commercial work, including cooking, dishwashing, and serving guests. After leaving the church in 2019, she filed a claim alleging the Zen Center had illegally underpaid her for this commercial work.
​
The Zen Center argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the ministerial exception, a rule that protects churches from lawsuits that interfere with religious doctrine or the hiring of ministers. The Court of Appeal disagreed. The court reasoned that unlike wrongful termination cases, wage-and-hour claims do not force the court to intervene in a church's faith or internal doctrine. Since the Zen Center could not prove that paying staff minimum wage interfered with its religious mission, the court ruled in Lorenzo’s favor, allowing her wage claim to move forward.

Lauren 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. She is Co-Chair of the Amicus Committee of the California Employment Lawyers Association, which submitted an amicus brief in favor of Lorenzo’s argument that the ministerial exception did not bar her claim for wage-and-hour violations. If you believe you have a wage-and-hour claim, click here to get in touch with our office. 

On October 8, 2025, Governor Newsom signed the Equal Pay Enforcement Act (SB 642) into law. Effective January 1, 2026, the new law strengthens California’s Equal Pay Act by broadening wage transparency requirements and extending the timeframe for employees to bring claims.

Under SB 642, employers are now required to provide a good faith estimate of expected pay in job postings. Pay ranges may only vary 10% above and below the mean pay for any given position. The law extends the time that employees may file a claim from two to three years. It adopts the continuing violations doctrine, allowing workers to seek back pay for up to six years.

Additionally, the law clarifies that the requirement of equal “wages” covers not just monetary pay, but also equity grants like stock and stock options. The law modernizes existing protections by removing binary gender language, protecting all employees regardless of gender identity.

SB 642 is an important step toward addressing the racial and gender wage gap. American women lose $1.7 trillion annually because of the wage gap. Black women earn just 64 cents for every dollar earned by a white man. Mariko Yoshihara, Policy Director for the California Employment Lawyers Association, explained that, “one of the biggest barriers to advancing pay equity is that workers often don’t know that they are being paid unfairly until it is too late.”
​
Lauren 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. If you would like to speak with her about an employment matter, click here.

California is leading the nation with new regulations on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in employment practices. Starting October 1, 2025, employers must follow antidiscrimination rules when using AI systems to make decisions on hiring, firing, promotion, or performance evaluations. If an AI system demonstrates bias against a protected group, even unintentionally, it may violate state civil right protections. This addresses a growing concern that AI tools used in decision-making may amplify existing inequalities in the workplace.

A wide range of AI tools used by employers are covered by the new regulations, from resume screeners to automated applicant ranking systems. Employers are encouraged to test these tools regularly for biases and document active preventative measures taken to mitigate potential discrimination in their AI tools. These records must be preserved for four years. The bottom line is that employers must explain how employment decisions using AI tools are made with preventative measures in mind.

For workers, these regulations provide a legal pathway to relief if they believe AI has been used to discriminate against them. For employers, the regulations create an incentive to conduct frequent bias testing and training as insurance against any lawsuits. Employers can raise evidence of anti-bias testing as an affirmative defense against AI discrimination lawsuits. Courts will have to weigh factors like the quality and timing of an employer’s bias testing, and whether any harmful results were addressed.

Additional AI legislation, SB 7, is on Governor Newsom’s desk awaiting signature. The bill could restrict employers from using AI to make personnel decisions without human involvement. California agencies are considering additional AI regulations in housing, education, lending, and health care.

 Lauren 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. If you would like to speak with her about an employment matter, click here.

California lawmakers have advanced a bill that would allow the state to protect labor relations and unionization efforts traditionally handled by the federal government. The bill comes amid a crisis at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which was left nonfunctional earlier this year. In February 2025, President Donald Trump dismissed a member of the NLRB, leaving the five-member Board without a quorum necessary to conduct business. With the board left paralyzed, the NLRB’s backlog of unaddressed cases continues to grow. States are now beginning to look at alternative ways to protect labor rights.

California Assembly Bill 288 is intended to circumvent the NLRB by significantly expanding the powers of the state’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB currently handles only public sector labor disputes. The proposed law would grant PERB authority to hear labor matters affecting private-sector workers if a case brought to the NLRB does not receive a response in six months. Once signed into law, AB 288 allows workers to petition PERB to rule on unfair labor practices, certify a union, order employers to bargain, and impose civil penalties. The law does not create new rights. Instead, it creates a parallel enforcement process in the absence of an NLRB quorum.

The bill was sent to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk and is awaiting his signature. Union sponsors of the bill are urging Governor Newsom to sign it into law. "Under AB 288, when the NLRB is unable or unwilling to act, the state will step in to enforce the law and ensure that workers who want a union actually get a union," said Lorena Gonzalez, President of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO.
​
Lauren 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. If you would like to speak with her about a labor matter, click here.

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a Law 360 article about a recent California Supreme Court decision on arbitration fees, Hohenshelt v. Superior Court. The case involves a new California law, SB707, that requires employers who compel employee claims to arbitration to pay arbitration fees in a timely manner or risk being sent back to the trial court. The question before the Court was whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted SB707 because it improperly burdens the employer’s ability to enforce private arbitration agreements. The new law is part of the California Arbitration Act (CAA), codified in the California Code of Civil Procedure.

In its decision, the California Supreme Court held that lower courts have been overly strict in their application of SB707, finding that employers waived arbitration for minor infractions, such as missing the payment deadline by only two days. The Court held that SB707 must be interpreted against the backdrop of existing contract law, and is not meant punish employers for good faith mistakes, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Going forward, the employee must show that the employer’s failure to pay arbitration fees on time was willful or grossly negligent. When SB707 is interpreted in this more lenient manner, the Court held, it is not preempted by the FAA because it does not single out arbitration agreements for worse treatment than other contracts.

The Law 360 article quoted Ms. Teukolsky who described the decision as a “mixed bag.” She explained, “The law still remains, but Justice Liu definitely made it easier for employers to stay in arbitration when they pay arbitration fees late. This does appear to be a new standard going forward."

Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including in employee misclassification cases. 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 Law 360 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’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the July 2025 edition of the CLA California Labor and Employment Law Review. Her column describes four recent decisions from California’s appellate courts that affect wage-and-hour law, including Williams v. Alacrity Solutions, a PAGA case that will be reviewed by the California Supreme Court in coming months.

California Lawyers Association (CLA) is a voluntary statewide bar association. Ms. Teukolsky was recently appointed to serve on the Executive Committee of CLA’s Labor & Employment Section.  Her three-year term started in October 2024.

Ms. Teukolsky has written for CLA’s California Labor and Employment Law Review for over two years. Her “Wage and Hour Case Notes” are published on an alternating quarterly basis. 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. If you would like to speak with Ms. Teukolsky about a wage-and-hour matter, click here.