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.

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a June 13 Law360 article discussing Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, a new case issued by the California Court of Appeal holding that employers may lawfully obtain prospective meal break waivers from their employees for shifts lasting 5-6 hours.
​
The state’s Labor Code requires employers to provide a 30-minute unpaid meal break for shifts longer than five hours or pay a penalty when breaks are not provided. Employees may forgo the break on shifts lasting six hours or less. In response, some employers have implemented blanket meal break waivers under which employees prospectively waive their right to a break on all future shifts lasting 5-6 hours. The question presented in Bradsbery was whether the employer may obtain a blanket waiver covering all future shifts, or whether the employer must obtain a waiver on a shift-by-shift basis. The court said that blanket waivers are permissible.

Ms. Teukolsky was quoted by Law360 explaining the real-world reasons a worker may choose to take or waive a break. “A worker might waive a meal break if they want to get through work faster,” she told Law360. “There may be some days that the employee really needs a break, especially if they're doing heavy lifting, manual labor, they work outside, they work in the Southern California sun. But other times, they might prefer to skip a meal break so they can leave work earlier, such as to pick up kids from school, run a personal errand or get to a second job.”

Some plaintiffs’ attorneys have argued that workers need to provide consent to waive a meal break daily. They raise concerns about the power imbalance between workers and employers that could lead workers to sign blanket waivers due to coercion or a lack of informed consent, especially if the employer requires the employee to sign the waiver as a condition of employment. Employers argue that it reduces the administrative burden of having workers sign a waiver every day.

Addressing the Bradsbery decision, Teukolsky noted that while the case touched on the validity of blanket waivers, it did not consider any argument that the waivers were unconscionable or obtained through coercion. “Because the unconscionability argument was not at issue in Bradsbery, this might not be the best case for the high court to take on the issue,” she said.

To read the Law360 article, click here. If you believe that you have not been paid proper wages or received lawful breaks, click here to get in touch with our office. 

Several cities spanning southern California have enacted minimum wage increases effective July 1, 2025. While the state’s minimum wage is set at $16.50, many local jurisdictions have enacted higher minimum wages in response to the increased cost of living in the state. According to the Living Wage Calculator from MIT, an individual would need to earn at least $27.81 an hour working full-time to cover basic necessities while living in Los Angeles County by themselves. On July 1, 2025, the minimum wage rate per hour for the city of Los Angeles will be set at just $17.87. 

The City of Los Angeles has also implemented industry-specific minimum wage increases. On May 27, 2025, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass signed an ordinance dubbed the Olympic Wage. The ordinance establishes a $22.50 minimum wage increase for airport and hotel workers effective July 1, 2025, and sets a path for a $30 minimum wage by the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The ordinance encountered pushback from business groups. A coalition of airline, hotel, and concession companies are circulating a petition to force a citywide vote on the ordinance. They argue that the increasing the minimum wage hurts small businesses in the tourism industry who will be forced to lay off workers. To successfully force a citywide referendum, the petition needs about 93,000 signatures within 30 days to be placed on the ballot in an upcoming election.

Some labor unions have launched a “Defend the Wage LA” campaign to defend the ordinance. UNITE HERE Local 11, a union representing hotel and restaurant workers, lobbied for the passage of the minimum wage ordinance. Their represented workers rallied on June 4, 2025, at Los Angeles City Hall to oppose the referendum and urging voters to not sign the petition. The union issued a news release stating:

“Rather than paying workers what they deserve, the industry which has already spent over 1 million dollars to stop their workers from earning a livable wage, is expected to spend millions more on this referendum”
​
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 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.