Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the November 2025 edition of the California Labor and Employment Law Review. Her column describes recent decisions from California’s appellate courts that affect wage-and-hour law, including Iloff v. LaPaille, a California Supreme Court case that makes it easier for employees to prove minimum wage violations.

The 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 every other quarter. 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.

A federal court has blocked California’s “captive audience” law, halting Senate Bill 399, which was to take effect on January 1, 2025. The law would have prevented employers from requiring employees to attend workplace meetings on political, religious, or union topics, allowing employees to opt out without fear of retaliation. Supporters argued it protected workers from coercive tactics, while business groups claimed it infringed on employer speech and conflicted with federal labor law.

The California Chamber of Commerce sued to block the law, claiming it encroached on the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which grants the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) authority over private-sector labor relations.

The U.S. District Court granted a preliminary injunction, finding S.B. 399 is likely preempted by federal labor law and violates the First Amendment by targeting employer communications based on content. Employers are allowed to hold “captive audience” meetings as litigation on S.B. 399 continues.
​
For more on the latest developments in employment law, visit our blog here. For our previous coverage on S.B. 399, click here. If you believe your employer may have violated workplace laws, click here to get in touch with our office.

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a May 9 Bloomberg Law article on the growing split among federal district courts over how to interpret the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (EFAA). The 2022 law protects workers alleging sexual harassment or assault from mandatory arbitration agreements. More employers are requiring their employees to submit to forced arbitration proceedings as a condition of employment. Yet, mandatory arbitration is often described as a discriminatory one-sided process favoring employers. EFAA solves this problem by voiding arbitration agreements allowing employees to pursue their sexual harassment claims in court.

The debate among district courts is centered on the pleading standard required for the law to apply. Either workers must plead “plausible” claims that are supported by detailed factual allegations or simply a lower standard of “non-frivolous” claims. Employers maintain that the higher threshold of “plausibility” for pleadings stops employees from bringing false or meritless claims to court. Some plaintiff-side lawyers have argued that employers are raising an improper defense by challenging the sufficiency of a worker’s pleadings when the real focus should be on the question of arbitration.
​
Bloomberg Law quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying that motions to dismiss or strike a claim are the proper “procedural mechanisms that defendants are supposed to use if they think that the allegations of a complaint are insufficient.”  

Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including sexual assault and harassment cases. Her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Daily Journal, Law360, Law.com, and the Los Angeles Times.
​
To read the Bloomberg Law article, click here. If you believe you have faced sexual assault or harassment at work, or have questions about arbitration, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

Several unions are suing to stop President Trump’s attempt to end labor unions at federal agencies. On March 27, 2025, Trump signed an executive order stripping union protections in 18 agencies. The executive order relies on a federal civil service law that gives the president authority to prohibit unionization at national security agencies.
​
President Trump has relied on a national security justification to enact other keys parts of his agenda from accelerating deportations to mass layoffs of federal employees.  Several unions are challenging Trump’s actions. On March 31, 2025, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) filed a lawsuit arguing Trump’s true goal is to radically reduce the size of the federal government and  remove “disloyal” civil servants. On April 4, 2025, several unions led by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) filed a similar lawsuit. The AFGE, representing 820,000 federal employees, alleges the government violated the First Amendment by retaliating against workers who have expressed opposition to Trump.

The unions support their claims by pointing to the White House’s fact sheet released alongside Trump’s executive order, which openly states that “[c]ertain Federal unions have declared war on President Trump’s agenda.” Trump frequently clashes with agency heads he nominated in his first Presidency – a mistake he does not want to repeat. Fealty to Trump has effectively become a prerequisite to working in the White House, endangering civil servant protections and free speech.

The civil servant system which governs the hiring and firing of hundreds of thousands of federal workers is meant to be non-partisan. Government employees can be removed from their jobs only for cause and must be notified in advance with the opportunity to respond and appeal. The NTEU and AFGE lawsuits are test cases for whether Trump will be permitted to skirt these requirements. 

Lauren Teukolsky was recently quoted in a Law 360 article about an ongoing legal challenge to California Assembly Bill 5 (A.B. 5). A.B. 5 requires all workers to be classified as employees, not independent contractors, unless they meet the criteria of a three-pronged test. Employers have brought multiple challenges to the law on free speech, equal protection, and preemption grounds. The latest challenge to the law comes from the trucking industry in a bid to avoid classifying motor carriers as employees.

Ms. Teukolsky explains that employee classification requires employers to provide protection and benefits like overtime pay, minimum wage, workers compensation, and unemployment insurance.

The Law 360 article quoted Ms. Teukolsky, who said: “Companies save a lot of money by misclassifying their workers as independent contractors, so it does not surprise me to see that companies are bringing every type of challenge they can to A.B. 5. It just shows you how important the law is in providing these really essential worker protections."

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.

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 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.

A federal judge has ruled that Uber and Postmates failed to demonstrate that they were unconstitutionally targeted by AB 5, the new law that requires most California workers to be classified as employees rather than independent contractors.

The lawsuit, Lydia Olson et al v. State of California et al, alleged that AB 5 violated the equal protection clause because it targeted workers of app-based companies like Uber and Postmates, while exempting numerous other types of workers like hairdressers and real estate agents.

In her ruling, issued September 18, 2020, U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee rejected this claim, finding that lawmakers were attempting to address the rampant misclassification of employees and to ensure that workers received the "basic rights and protections they deserve under the law, the attendant problems, such as a lack paid sick leave,  including a minimum wage, workers’ compensation if they are injured on the job, unemployment insurance, paid sick leave, and paid family leave."

Judge Gee ruled that Uber and Postmates did not prove that app-based companies were targeted because of animus, reasoning that AB5 maintains the traditional exemption of workers who have long been considered independent contractors under California law. 

Earlier this month, the California Legislature revised AB 5 to exempt several more businesses from the classification test and to increase the state’s ability to enforce the law. Meanwhile, Uber, Lyft and other app-based companies have poured millions of dollars into Prop 22, a measure on the November ballot that would exempt their drivers from AB5 and classify them as independent contractors. 

If you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor instead of an employee, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation. 

Earlier this week, the California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision in Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court.  The plaintiffs were truck drivers who delivered goods for Dynamex. (The last time I ordered something from Ikea, Dynamex delivery drivers delivered it.)  Dynamex classified the drivers as independent contractors, essentially claiming that the drivers ran their own delivery businesses.  The drivers contended that they were actually employees.  Why does this matter?  Only employees get the benefit of labor laws, like minimum wage protections and entitlement to meal and rest breaks.  

California courts have long disagreed over the proper test to apply to figure out whether someone is an employee or independent contractor.  We now have a fairly bright-line test, called the "ABC Test."  Under this test, a worker is only an independent contractor if the hiring entity proves ALL of the following: (A) the worker is free from the direction and control of the entity that hired him or her; (B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (C) the worker has an "independently established" business and is performing work for the hiring entity out of that business.  If the worker can show that any one of these factors is not met -- for example, the hiring entity is a delivery company and she is working as a delivery driver -- the test fails and the worker should be classified as an employee.

Which workers will NOT qualify as independent contractors under this test? Examples  may include copywriters hired by a public relations firm to write press releases; IT workers who exclusively provide IT support to customers of a single tech firm; or a worker who performs maintenance for a maintenance company.  For now, the ABC test applies only to cases involving California's wage orders (think reporting time pay). But, it's not hard to imagine that courts will extend the ABC test to other areas, like discrimination law or personal injury.

Every case is different.  If you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor, you may want to consult with an attorney.