Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in April 22 article by The Guardian, which discusses Amazon’s treatment of injured workers. Workers were allegedly encouraged to continue their shifts shortly after witnessing traumatic events or medical emergencies on the floor. According to the article, workers say Amazon artificially lowers its injury numbers by using its in-house medical clinics, known as AmCare, to filter out injury reports. The article quotes workers as saying these clinics provide minimal care and are used to help Amazon avoid officially recording an injury.

The article describes a recent lawsuit that Teukolsky Law filed against Amazon. In the complaint, plaintiff Juan Loera-Gomez alleges he suffered injuries to his back and shoulders after spending hours lifting boxes that each weighed more than 50 pounds. Amazon allegedly accommodated his injuries by moving him to a light duty position for six months, but abruptly placed him on unpaid leave, saying the company could no longer accommodate his work restrictions. He was then fired. The lawsuit alleges claims for disability discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The Guardian quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying, “This isn’t an isolated incident. It looks to me there’s a pretty clear pattern of this occurring in Amazon warehouses”

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, Daily Journal, 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.

The Inland Empire’s local NPR affiliate, KVCR News, covered a recent lawsuit filed by Teukolsky Law against Amazon on behalf of Juan Loera, a former San Bernardino warehouse employee who sustained life-altering injuries after two years of handling heavy cargo. The lawsuit contends Mr. Loera’s condition required medical accommodation, but he was allegedly forced into unpaid leave and eventually terminated via email, causing significant financial hardship for his family.

Data from the Strategic Organizing Center and the National Employment Law Project shows that the serious injury rate at Amazon facilities was nearly double that of its industry competitors in 2024. The company accounted for 56% of all serious industry injuries, often requiring workers to be moved to light duty or to miss work entirely due to the severity of their physical trauma.

As the Inland Empire continues to serve as a global hub for logistics, this case serves as a bellwether for how large-scale employers manage disability accommodations and the protection of workers who exercise their right to demand safer working conditions.

Mr. Loera is represented by Lauren Teukolsky and staff attorneys at The Warehouse Worker Resources Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving working conditions in the warehouse industry in Southern California. Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including in unpaid wage 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 KVCR 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.

Three major federal employee unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), have filed a lawsuit against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), alleging that a new question on federal job applications creates an impermissible “political loyalty test.” At issue is a prompt now included in many job postings that asks candidates how they would “help advance the president’s executive orders and policy priorities” to identify specific initiatives they would support.

According to the unions, this requirement converts a traditionally merit-based civil service system into an unconstitutional political vetting process. Their complaint alleges that compelling applicants to explain their support for presidential policies infringes on First Amendment rights and chills political expression. The unions also cite data showing the essay prompt has appeared in over 5,800 postings, spanning from policy roles to maintenance and clerical positions.

The OPM has defended the prompts as a lawful method to evaluate applicants’ skills and commitment to public service. Director Scott Kupor maintains that responses to the essay are optional and that hiring decisions “cannot consider political or ideological beliefs.” Still, the unions assert that internal guidance effectively makes the question mandatory and that political appointees may review the answers. The lawsuit will likely require the court to determine whether federal hiring standards may include political loyalty tests.

​For more on the latest developments in employment law, visit our blog here. If you believe you may have been discriminated against in the hiring process, click here to get in touch with our office.

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.

In a June 4th article, the LA Times reported on a lawsuit brought by marketing executive, Chad Bustos, against his former employer, Terranea Resort. Teukolsky Law filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on June 4, 2025, alleging that Terranea’s President, Ralph Grippo, retaliated against Bustos.

Bustos led an all-female marketing team, including some new and expectant mothers. He alleges that he was illegally fired for defending his female employees from Grippo’s discriminatory, anti-pregnancy comments and actions.

The lawsuit details a February 2024 meeting in which Grippo allegedly became enraged after learning that one of his employees was planning to take maternity leave. Another female marketing team member returned from maternity leave weeks prior to this February meeting. Grippo allegedly interrogated each female employee, demanding to know if they were pregnant.

After the meeting, Grippo allegedly began treating the marketing team harshly by implementing strict attendance requirements and using the resort’s camera to monitor their movements.

According to the complaint, Grippo wanted to discipline the team and tried to force Bustos into complying. Bustos pleaded for more flexibility for the young mothers on his all-female team, noting that Terranea could be opening itself up to a lawsuit. Grippo is alleged to have terminated Bustos in retaliation for not complying with his directives to write up the females on his team.

Teukolsky Law has filed previous lawsuits against Terranea and its parent company, JC Resorts. Teukolsky Law has filed a wage-and-hour lawsuit that settled for $2.15 million in 2019, a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of four young women which settled in 2024 for an undisclosed amount, and a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of Sandra Pezqueda. Pezqueda was named a Time Magazine’s Person of the Year as one of the “silence breakers” who spoke out against the sexual harassment they’ve experienced.

To read the LA Times article, click here. To read the Bustos v Terranea complaint, click here. If you believe you have faced sexual assault or harassment at work, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

Earlier today, Teukolsky Law filed a new lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Chad Bustos, a 61-year old former executive at the Terranea luxury resort. The lawsuit alleges Bustos was fired for opposing anti-pregnancy remarks made by Terranea’s president, Ralph Grippo, and for protecting the rights of young working mothers he supervised. Grippo recruited Bustos to be Terranea’s Chief Marketing Officer in 2023. The two previously worked together for 11 years. Bustos supervised an all-female marketing team, three of whom were young moms with kids under the age of three.

The lawsuit alleges that during a meeting in February 2024, Grippo became enraged upon learning one woman on the team planned to go out on maternity leave shortly after another had just returned from maternity leave. He allegedly pushed his chair back, stood up, and aggressively interrogated each woman in the room, demanding to know if they were pregnant. He allegedly pointed to each woman in turn, asked “Are you pregnant,” and waited for her to respond. Under California law, it is illegal for employers to ask employees about medical conditions, including pregnancy. Courts have previously found that anti-pregnancy comments are evidence of sex discrimination.

When Bustos confronted Grippo and told him his anti-pregnancy remarks were inappropriate, the lawsuit alleges Grippo doubled down, telling Bustos, “I can ask people whatever I want, I can ask what they had for dinner, I can ask if they are pregnant.”  Even though the women complained to Human Resources, Grippo allegedly has yet to apologize for his unlawful conduct. It is unclear whether Terranea has taken any disciplinary action against Grippo, who remains President to this day.

The lawsuit alleges that after Grippo’s anti-pregnancy tirade, Grippo started treating the all-female marketing team harshly, demanding they arrive at work by 8AM and leave no earlier than 6PM, in addition to working holidays and weekends. Grippo allegedly told the women that if they did not want to work these hours, they “should go work for a Marriott.”

Believing Grippo’s demands were retaliatory, Bustos pleaded with Grippo to give the young moms on his team some flexibility because they were responsible for dropping off and picking up their young kids from daycare. Grippo allegedly refused. According to the lawsuit, he started monitoring Terranea’s security cameras to see when the women were coming and going. He allegedly demanded Bustos discipline two of the young moms who arrived after 8AM and left before 6PM for childcare reasons. Bustos refused, telling Grippo that his retaliatory conduct would lead to the company “being sued.”

In early August 2024, Grippo allegedly tried to force Bustos to resign. Bustos allegedly told Grippo he would not resign and again asked Grippo to refrain from “targeting” his team.  The lawsuit alleges Grippo responded by firing Bustos on August 28, 2024. Grippo’s alleged retaliation continued: he later allegedly refused to promote the woman who reported his anti-pregnancy tirade to Human Resources, saying she had “attacked” him by reporting him to HR and “would ‘have to prove she was sorry for doing that to him’ before he would promote her.”

Bustos’s complaint alleges claims for wrongful termination and failure to prevent and correct discriminatory and retaliatory conduct. Ms. Teukolsky has filed previous lawsuits against Terranea and JC Resorts, including a wage-and-hour lawsuit that settled for $2.15 million in 2019, a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of four young women which settled in 2024 for an undisclosed amount, and a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of Sandra Pezqueda. Ms. Pezqueda was named a TIME Magazine Person of the Year as one of the “silence breakers” who spoke out about the sexual harassment she allegedly experienced while working as a dishwasher at Terranea.

“Chad Bustos is a true ally,” said Ms. Teukolsky. “He stood up for the rights of pregnant women and working mothers and was fired. No one should have to choose between motherhood and a job. We look forward to holding Terranea accountable for its actions.”

A slate of new protections for workers are now on Gavin Newsom’s desk as the 2023-2024 California legislative session officially ends. The dedicated advocacy of California Employment Lawyers Association has resulted in several promising measures one signature away from bringing new protections to California’s workers.
​
Expanding Protections for Household Domestic Services
SB-1350 expands the California Occupational Safety and Health Act’s definition of “employment” to include household domestic services. The amended definition permits California to enforce and administer all occupational health and safety laws to protect employees performing household services. Previously, domestic workers were explicitly exempted from traditional worker protections.
These protections are critical for the domestic service industry. In the California, domestic workers are largely migrants and women of color.  The state contains an estimated 350,000 workers for 2 million households. These workers provide care to the most vulnerable populations of immunocompromised and senior individuals. They suffer the consequences of poor labor protection. A majority of surveyed household domestic workers (84%) have reported preventable musculoskeletal injuries and chronic pain, and over half of the surveyed workers (55%) reported working through their injuries due to fears about job security.

Intersectionality in Anti-Discrimination Protections
SB-1137 expands civil right protections in public schooling, public accommodations, housing, and employment. While the law currently affords protections against discrimination based on a protected trait, this bill expands those protections for any combination of two or more protected traits.
Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, the bill sponsor, recognized that individuals with intersectional identities could face discrimination that does not neatly fall into any single  category of discrimination. The bill is a common-sense reform that addresses this “intersectional discrimination” against Californians with overlapping identities. Advocates argue that the recognition of intersectional discrimination has judicial precedent. The EEOC and the Ninth Circuit have already recognized that protected characteristics can overlap creating an entirely unique form of discrimination.

Enhancing Employment Protections for Survivors of Violence
AB-2499 provides greater employment protections for survivors of violence.  Existing law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for a survivor of violence or crime. Pre-existing protections forbid employers from discharging or discriminating against employees because of their status as a survivor of crime, abuse, or for taking time off to serve on a jury or as a witness in a judicial proceeding.
Amending existing law, this bill revises the definition of an unlawful employment practice under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to include discrimination or retaliation against an employee for taking protected time off. California’s Civil Rights Department would have enforcement authority over violations of jury, court, and victim time off provisions. This bill addresses the growing impact of crime on employees. One in six victims of violent crime report job loss or demotion and 53% of domestic violence survivors report job loss due to their circumstances.

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. 

Jeffrey Thornton, a Black job applicant in San Diego, has filed the first discrimination lawsuit in California invoking the CROWN Act, a relatively new California law that went into effect in January 2020.  CROWN (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair) prohibits companies and public schools from using grooming policies targeting Black people’s natural hairstyles, including cornrows, dreadlocks, and twists.

In late November 2021, Thornton sued an event production company called Encore Global, which has an office in San Diego, alleging that Encore violated the CROWN Act when they asked him to cut his dreadlocks as a condition of employment.  Thornton says Encore told him he would need to cut his dreadlocks to comply with the company’s standards. The lawsuit alleges that Encore required Thornton to cut his hair so that it was off his ears, eyes and shoulders, and that he would not be in compliance by simply tying back his hair.

Since California passed the first CROWN Act in 2019, twelve more states have passed similar legislation. While federal courts generally take the stance that afros are a racial trait protected by anti-discrimination laws, they don’t take the same position toward other natural Black hairstyles. That is why the CROWN Act offers unique and groundbreaking protection for California employees. California state senator Holly Mitchell, who wears locs, originally introduced the CROWN Act after being inspired by a case involving a Black woman in Alabama who lost her job at a call center after refusing to cut her dreadlocks.

Encore has stated since the filing of the lawsuit, “We regret any miscommunication with Mr. Thornton regarding our standard grooming policies — which he appears to fully meet and we have made him an offer of employment.”  Thornton seeks an injunction prohibiting Encore from implementing a grooming or personal appearance policy that violates the CROWN Act or is otherwise discriminatory against people of color.

If you believe you have faced racial discrimination at work, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation. 

On October 8, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 331 into law. The bill, sponsored by State Senator Connie Leyva, makes it illegal for companies to prohibit employees from speaking about discrimination and harassment.

Previously, laws such as the Stand Together Against Non-Disclosures Act banned non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in sexual harassment, but did not prohibit NDAs for other types of discrimination, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Now, California workers will have legal protections for speaking out about all manner of unlawful conduct in the workplace.

This legislation has been strongly supported by Ifeoma Ozoma, a Pinterest whistleblower who spoke out about racial discrimination at the company. NDAs are commonly used, particularly in the tech industry, to keep employees quiet about workplace harassment and discrimination for fear of facing legal action and fines. People began discussing them more frequently after it was reported during the #MeToo movement that Harvey Weinstein and other abusers used NDAs to silence their victims.

SB 331 was sponsored by the California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA), the organization Earthseed, and Equal Rights Advocates. It will take effect on January 1, 2022.
​
If you believe you have been a victim of discrimination or harassment in the workplace, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.