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. 

President Donald Trump’s recent attacks on the National Relations Labor Board (NLRB) have disrupted the Board’s operations. The quasi-judicial body traditionally consists of five board members appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. But recently, partisan congressional gridlock in the Senate stalled replacements for two Board member vacancies. Since Trump assumed office on January 10, 2025, his directives and firings have forced the Board to further undergo a chaotic restructuring of its remaining three board members. 

On his first day in office, Trump appointed current member Marvin E. Kaplan to be the Board chairman, and later fired Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox. The NLRB needs at least three Board members to establish a quorum, but without Ms. Wilcox, the Board only has two members.

A growing concern is that Trump’s true intent is to paralyze the functioning of the NLRB. Without a quorum, the NLRB is unable to issue new decisions or respond to appeals, which benefits employers. Companies who receive adverse rulings from Administrative Law  Judge can simply appeal to the quorum-less NLRB. The Board is without power to review the charge, meaning it would remain in limbo indefinitely. Meanwhile, employers may simply continue business as usual.

Wilcox filed a lawsuit alleging her firing was unlawful. A federal judge agreed, ordering her reinstatement. But a federal appeals court stayed the order reinstating her, signaling it intends to rule in Trump’s favor.
​
It’s likely that the Supreme Court will weigh in on this issue. The case will test the Supreme Court’s willingness to reign in Trump’s power. The Supreme Court historically upheld job removal protections for agency officials under the 90-year-old precedent Humphrey’s Executor. The Court has recently started chipping away at the ruling but has yet to outright overrule the precedent. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump it could mean dramatic changes to almost all administrative agencies. 

​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.

Last week, Teukolsky Law asked Chateau Marmont's attorney to reconsider the Chateau's request that TL client, Thomasina Gross, dismiss her race discrimination and sex harassment lawsuit against the famed Hollywood institution and refile her claims in private arbitration proceedings.  Here is the letter:

Dear Mr. Stone:
 
We are in receipt of your March 10 letter in which you ask our client, Thomasina Gross, to dismiss the lawsuit she filed in Los Angeles Superior Court against your client, the Chateau Marmont, and instead file her race discrimination and sexual harassment claims with JAMS, a private arbitration company whose proceedings are not open to the public.  We recognize that the arbitration agreement Ms. Gross signed when she started working for the Chateau appears to be enforceable.  However, we would ask that you reconsider your request for the following reasons.
 
First, the Chateau’s treatment of its employees is a matter of substantial interest to the public and should accordingly be evaluated in a public forum, so that the public can make informed decisions about whether or not to give their business to the Chateau.  Whereas arbitrations are essentially a “secret system controlled by the wrongdoers,” court cases ensure that the public has access to information that affects them.  If Ms. Gross’s claims proceed in arbitration, none of the documents filed in the case will be a public record, and the testimony provided by witnesses will not be accessible to the public. 
 
Second, a plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery to learn information about the defendant’s case is far more constrained in arbitration than in court.  For example, the JAMS Employment Arbitration Minimum Standards provide for only one deposition per party, while California state courts allow for the parties to take the depositions of all witnesses with relevant information.  Given the nuances involved in evaluating a race discrimination and sexual harassment claim, we believe broader discovery is necessary.
 
Third, while forced arbitration is unfair to all workers (Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than to win their cases in arbitration), it disproportionately affects female workers and Black workers, who are the most likely groups to be bound by forced arbitration.  Meanwhile, only 28.84% of JAMS arbitrators are women, and only around 4% are African-American.  We believe that our client, an African-American woman alleging race discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace, deserves to have her case heard by a jury of her peers that is reflective of the community of Los Angeles. 
 
For these reasons, we would respectfully request that you permit Ms. Gross to proceed with her claims in court, and not require her to proceed in arbitration.  We appreciate your consideration of our request.

At a press conference on January 28, 2021, Lauren Teukolsky announced the filing of a new lawsuit against Chateau Marmont on behalf of former employee Thomasina "Thommi" Gross. Chateau Marmont is a legendary Hollywood hotel known as a playground for its wealthy clientele. Ms. Gross, who is African-American, worked as an events server there from 2017 to 2020, until she was laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The complaint, which was filed on January 27 in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges that Ms. Gross was repeatedly passed over for promotions in favor of white employees. Ms. Gross, who had over a decade of experience in high-end hotel hospitality, received far less compensation and fewer hours than her white counterparts. This was consistent, says the complaint, with the Chateau’s discriminatory preference for placing white or light-skinned people of color in guest-facing roles.

The suit also alleges that due to the Chateau’s “anything goes” party environment, guests felt free to touch and grope Ms. Gross as she served food during events. When Ms. Gross reported guest misconduct to management, the complaint alleges, they took no steps to protect her, and even retaliated by not giving her any more restaurant shifts.

Ms. Teukolsky said: “Ms. Gross has demonstrated tremendous courage by stepping forward to challenge the discriminatory practices of one of the most iconic Hollywood institutions. We hope that her bravery will lead the Chateau to take steps to protect its employees from guest harassment and to ensure that its hiring practices going forward comply with California’s powerful anti-discrimination laws.”

In an article published on January 28 in the Hollywood Reporter, Ms. Gross commented: “I don’t like having to leave my dignity at the door. It’s exhausting. We’re forced into a fight-or-flight mode. We’re conditioned to believe we have to expect this. I’m speaking out on behalf of myself and others who believe they’ll face retaliation. Changing the culture is my focus. No one should have to deal with this on a day-to-day basis.”

If you believe you have experienced racial discrimination or sexual harassment at work, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

Teukolsky Law, APC filed a class action lawsuit today against the luxury Terranea Resort in Rancho Palos Verdes, alleging that the hotel has subjected its workers to numerous wage-and-hour violations, including failure to pay them for all hours worked, the denial of meal and rest breaks, and failure to reimburse them for work supplies.  Surrounded by hotel workers, Lauren Teukolsky announced the lawsuit along with named plaintiff Galen Landsberg at a press conference outside the oceanfront resort this morning.

The lawsuit claims that the resort regularly prohibits workers from parking in its onsite lots to make room for guests and requires workers to instead take company shuttles from remote off-site parking lots, but does not pay them for the additional travel time. Due to the high cost of rent in Rancho Palos Verdes, most workers commute to the hotel from more affordable parts of the Southland. Workers say the Terranea’s required use of company shuttles can add an hour or more to their already grueling daily drives.

“Rancho Palos Verdes is not somewhere we workers can afford to live, so we drive long distances each day to get to work.  I live in mid-City Los Angeles.  It’s frustrating that, on top of the long commute, we have to come in early to take the company’s shuttles from the offsite lots and are not paid for this time,” said Galen Landsberg, a cook at the Terranea.

Freddy Lovato, another Terranea cook, said: “I know the law says that we are supposed to be able to take two ten-minute rest breaks when we work an eight-hour shift.  But that is not the reality.  The kitchen is incredibly busy and we are regularly not permitted to take breaks.”

The suit also alleges that the hotel fails to reimburse workers for such required tools as knives, sharpening stones, peelers, lemon juicers, kitchen scissors, spatulas, and graters at Terranea’s expensive restaurants.  “Talk about nickel-and-diming,” said Ms. Teukolsky.  “While guests pay upward of $30 or $40 for a single entrée, Terranea pockets the profits and requires their own employees to supply the tools that enable them to perform their jobs.” 

The Terranea, a Lowe Enterprises property, has become iconic in the upper echelons of the Los Angeles hospitality industry. The expansive property is located up the Pacific Coast from the Trump National Golf Course. With its ocean-side views and A-list clientele, the 5-star resort projects an image of luxury and environmental stewardship.