Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the November 2024 edition of the CLA California Labor and Employment Law Review. Her column describes three recent decisions from California’s Supreme Court and appellate courts that affect wage-and-hour law.

Ms. Teukolsky’s column discusses whether Proposition 22’s classification of Uber and Lyft drivers as independent contractors is constitutional, and whether courts can approve PAGA settlements even when there are multiple overlapping PAGA cases. Her column also explores whether public entities are subject to California’s Labor Code provisions for rest and meal breaks.

California Lawyers Association (CLA) is a voluntary statewide bar association. Its mission is to “promote excellence, diversity and inclusion in the legal profession and fairness in access to justice and the rule of law.”  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.

​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 will speak on a panel for the Alameda County Bar Association’s (ACBA) Labor and Employment Symposium on Friday, September 15th. The panel is titled, “In Viking River’s Wake: Two Supreme Courts on the Future of PAGA,” and will focus on the viability of PAGA actions following the US Supreme Court’s opinion in Viking River and the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies.

Ms. Teukolsky will appear on the panel alongside Arthur Gaus, a partner at Kaufman Dolowich. The pairing will allow viewers to hear analysis from an employee’s perspective, represented by Ms. Teukolsky, and an employer’s perspective, represented by Mr. Gaus.

Ms. Teukolsky’s commentary on both Viking River and Adolph v. Uber has been featured in a variety of publications, including Bloomberg Law, Daily Journal and Law.com. She also previously discussed the cases on panels presented by the Beverly Hills Bar Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association, and California Employment Lawyer Association.
​
The panel will take place over Zoom in addition to several other panels being presented at the ACBA symposium. For more information on the panels and how to view them, click here. For more information on Ms. Teukolsky’s work and her firm, click here. 

Lauren Teukolsky will speak on a Beverly Hills Bar Association (BHBA) webinar on August 22 on the future of California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) following the state’s highly anticipated Supreme Court ruling in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.. Chris Jalian, a Partner at Paul Hastings, LLP, will join Ms. Teukolsky on the webinar. Nazgole Hashemi, Co-Founder of LegalAxxis, Inc., will serve as moderator for the event.

The webinar will examine what the Adolph v. Uber ruling means for employees and employers, with Ms. Teukolsky representing the employees’ perspective and Mr. Jalian representing the employers’ perspective.  In the ruling, the Court held that California’s workers could continue to pursue PAGA labor claims on behalf of their coworkers even if their individual labor claims were forced into arbitration. Experts considered the ruling to be a big win for the state’s workers.

Ms. Teukolsky’s commentary on Adolph v. Uber was previously featured in several articles by Bloomberg Law and Law.com.

The BHBA’s Labor and Employment section will present the webinar. The section provides a forum for labor and employment attorneys and neutrals to network, share ideas, and learn about the latest issues and trends in the field.
​
The webinar will take place on Tuesday, August 22 from 12:30 pm to 1:30 pm PT via ZOOM. To register, click here.