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.

A Law360 article covers a recent lawsuit filed by Teukolsky Law against food service giant Compass Group USA regarding unpaid travel time at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The article highlights the significant amounts of unpaid time airport lounge workers must spend on employer-mandated shuttle buses to travel to their work stations after they pass through TSA security checkpoints.

Plaintiff Ignacio Vazquez and his coworkers work in the remote Terminal R , which is not connected to LAX and can only be accessed by taking a shuttle. The complaint alleges that employees must wait alongside passengers for the shuttle to arrive, take the shuttle across the tarmac (where they are often stopped by passing airplanes), and are allowed to clock in only after they reach their workstations in Terminal R.

A previous employer permitted employees to clock in before they boarded the employer-mandated shuttle bus and be paid for the travel time, but Compass changed this practice, resulting in significant amounts of unpaid time. The lawsuit alleges Compass disciplined employees who attempted to clock in before they boarded the shuttle so they could be paid for the time. As discussed in the Law360 article, employees can lose up to an hour of pay each day navigating the mandatory travel requirements.

Mr. Vazquez and putative class members are represented by Lauren Teukolsky and staff attorneys from UNITE HERE Local 11. 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 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 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. 

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 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.

Johnny Johnson and Hugo Sipaque are suing their former employer, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), for failing to properly compensate hourly metro workers.  The lawsuit alleges that LACMTA violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by requiring line instructors to be present 15 to 30 minutes before they clocked in for their scheduled shift.

The plaintiffs argue that if they didn’t show up early, they’d be in trouble. LACMTA allegedly enforced this requirement but failed to pay its line instructors for the time spent on pre-shift work on LACMTA premises.
The lawsuit also alleges violations for failure to pay overtime wages because the additional time worked from pre-shift activities caused some employees to work more than 40 hours a week.  LACMTA’s failure to compensate workers for all hours worked also causes them to produce inaccurate wage statements.

Plaintiffs believe that a class of around 700 current and former employees all suffered similar violations while working for LACMTA in the past four years. They allege their claims amount to $26 million in damages.

Lauren Teukolsky is an expert on wage-and-hour laws. She has written for the 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.

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.”

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.