Teukolsky Law, A Professional Corporation
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • Practice Areas
  • Contact
  • Testimonials

Teukolsky Law Blog.

LAUREN TEUKOLSKY’S “WAGE AND HOUR CASE NOTES” PUBLISHED IN THE NOVEMBER 2024 EDITION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW REVIEW

12/5/2024

0 Comments

 
Picture
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.
0 Comments

Federal Appeals Court Hands Win to Gig Workers in Prop 22 Case

9/22/2021

0 Comments

 
On Monday, the Ninth Circuit handed gig workers a win, invalidating a ruling that a Grubhub driver should be classified as an independent contractor. The Court ruled that the lower court must look at the case again because the California Supreme Court has now held that the Dynamex “ABC” test applies retroactively. Under the ABC test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the employer can prove that the worker: (A) was not subject to the employer’s control, (B) provided services outside of the employer’s usual course of business, and (C) did not have their own independent business.

The three-judge appellate panel remanded to the district court to apply the ABC test to plaintiff Raef Lawson’s minimum wage and overtime claims. The panel rejected Grubhub’s argument that Prop 22, which was passed last year and allows some app-based drivers to be classified as independent contractors, applies retroactively. “We conclude without difficulty that Proposition 22 does not apply retroactively,” the Court wrote. The panel also rejected Grubhub’s argument that Prop 22 somehow “abates” or nullifies wage claims that accrued before Prop 22 went into effect. This is the first time a court has ruled that Prop 22 is not retroactive, and that Prop 22 does not abate previously-existing wage claims.

On remand, the lower court must determine whether Lawson is an employee under the ABC test, and also whether Lawson is exempt from the ABC test under one of the exemptions provided for by AB5, the landmark legislation that codified the ABC test after Dynamex was decided. The AB5 exemptions are retroactive. We will be following this case closely to see if the lower court will find that Lawson is an employee or an independent contractor.

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

Prop 22 Updates: Workers and Unions Fight Back As New Law Takes Effect

2/12/2021

0 Comments

 
As Prop 22 goes into effect in California, workers and unions are already fighting back against the measure, which was largely propped up by tech giants’ $200 million “Yes on 22” campaign.

Several drivers and SEIU filed a petition in California Supreme Court on January 12, 2021 seeking to overturn the new ballot measure, which aims to permanently classify gig workers as independent contractors instead of employees. The drivers and union allege that Prop 22 violates California’s constitution and are asking the Court to invalidate the new law, arguing that Prop 22 makes it too difficult for state legislators to implement workers’ compensation. On February 3, the Court declined to hear the suit 5-2. However, the Court said the case could be refiled in a lower court. On February 11, the drivers and union filed a similar suit in Alameda County Superior Court.

Prop 22’s destructive effects are being felt by workers statewide. The Knock LA reported last month that Vons, Pavilions, and other stores owned by Albertsons Companies in California plan to fire grocery delivery drivers later this month and will shift to a third-party delivery service that uses independent contractors. Drivers working for Albertsons Companies are currently classified as employees; the company’s Bay Area drivers are unionized and will not be affected by the change, but delivery drivers in Southern California not protected by a union lack the power to fight back against this move by the grocery stores.
​
If you believe you have been misclassified as an independent contractor instead of an employee, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.
0 Comments

Passage of Prop 22 Would Set A Dangerous Precedent

10/7/2020

0 Comments

 
One of the propositions on the ballot on November 3, Proposition 22, could have major implications for the future of AB 5 enforcement in California. If passed, the proposition would allow gig-economy companies like Uber, Lyft, and Instacart to classify their drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. These companies would be exempt from AB5, the new California law that requires most employers to classify their workers as employees.  Courts have consistently ruled that Uber and Lyft have violated AB5 by refusing to reclassify their drivers as employees since AB5 went into effect on January 1, 2020. As recently as October 22, 2020, a California appeals court ruled that Uber and Lyft must reclassify their drivers as employees rather than independent contractors. 

If Prop. 22 passes, Uber and Lyft would not need to comply with these court rulings.  As independent contractors, their drivers would not receive many of the benefits and protections of the employment relationship, like minimum wage protections, paid sick leave, workers' compensation benefits if they are injured or unemployment benefits in they become unemployed.

Backers of Prop. 22, including Uber, Lyft, Instacart, Postmates (owned by Uber) and DoorDash, have poured more than $187.5 million into backing the bill, making it the most expensive proposition in California history and dwarfing the $15 million raised by the opposition, spearheaded by labor groups who have traditionally represented the interests of working people over corporate interests. Prop. 22 would not only apply to Lyft and Uber drivers, but would cover all drivers who work for a "delivery network company," potentially including FedEx, Amazon, Walmart, UPS, and any other companies that makes deliveries in California.  

If passed, Prop. 22 would set a dangerous precedent in California.  Companies who don't like laws that the Legislature passes, and who don't like court rulings requiring them to treat their workers fairly, could simply open their coffers -- filled with the profits they earn by not spending money on employee benefits -- and buy themselves a ballot proposition. Significantly, Prop. 22 contains a provision stating that it cannot be amended except by a 7/8 majority of the Legislature, effectively tying lawmakers' hands for the rest of eternity absent a new ballot proposition.  California voters should reject this company-sponsored initiative and let the California Legislature do its job to govern in the interests of the people. 

If you think you have been misclassified as an independent contractor, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.
0 Comments

    Author

    Lauren Teukolsky is the founder and owner of Teukolsky Law, A Professional Corporation.

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    May 2018
    December 2017
    October 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017

    Categories

    All
    AB 1041
    AB 1288
    AB 1949
    AB 2188
    AB 2288
    AB 2499
    AB 257
    AB5
    AB 51
    ACBA
    ADA
    Advocate Magazine
    AFL-CIO
    Amazon
    Appellate Court
    Arbitration
    Arbitration Agreement
    Avvo
    Bereavement Leave
    Berkeley
    Black Lives Matter
    Blackwell
    Bloomberg
    Boycott
    CAFA
    California
    California Labor And Employment Review
    California Lawyers Association
    California Supreme Court
    Cannabis
    Captive Audience
    Case Notes
    CBA
    CELA
    CFRA
    Chateau Marmont
    Civil Rights
    CLA
    Class Action
    Class Action Waiver
    CLEL
    Client Choice
    College Of Labor And Employment Lawyers
    Conference
    Confidentiality
    Congress
    Coronavirus
    COVID
    COVID 19
    COVID-19
    CROWN Act
    Daily Journal
    De Minimis
    Department Of Labor
    Discrimination
    Dynamex
    EFAA
    Ella Hushagen
    Employee
    Fair Labor Standards Act
    Fair Work Week Ordinance
    Family Leave
    Fast Food Workers
    FEHA
    Forced Arbitration
    FTC
    Gag Clause
    Gender Discrimination
    Gender Dysphoria
    Gender Gap
    Gender Identity
    Gig Workers
    Google
    Governor Newsom
    Harassment
    Healthcare Worker
    Health Insurance
    Higher Wages
    Hms Host
    Hollywood Writers' Strike
    Hotel
    Hotel Figueroa
    Hotel Worker Retention Ordinance
    Hotel Workers
    Housekeeper's Bill Of Rights
    HR 4445
    HWPO
    Hyatt
    Immigration
    Immigration Status
    Independent Contractor
    JC Resorts
    Julie Su
    LACBA
    LA County
    Lauren Teukolsky
    LAUSD
    Law360
    Law.com
    Lawsuit
    Lax
    Leadership
    Legal Aid At Work
    Legal Dive
    Legislation
    LERA
    Litigation
    Living Wage Ordinance
    Local Ordinance
    Long Beach
    Long Beach Hotel Working Conditions
    Los Angeles
    Lyft
    McDonalds
    McLaren Macomb
    #metoo
    MeToo
    Microsoft
    Minimum Wage
    Misclassification
    Montage
    Naranjo
    NCAA
    NDA
    NLRA
    NLRB
    Nonbinary
    Noncompete Agreements
    Non Disclosure Agreement
    Non-disclosure Agreement
    Non Disparagement
    Non-disparagement
    Organizing
    Oscars
    Paga
    Panel
    Pay Gap
    Pendry
    President Biden
    Press
    Private Attorney General Act
    Prop 22
    Race Discrimination
    Remote Work
    Reproductive Health
    Retaliation
    Roe V. Wade
    Safe Leave
    SB 1137
    SB 1162
    SB 1350
    SB 616
    SB 699
    SB 836
    SB 848
    SB 92
    SCOTUS
    Settlement
    Severance
    Severance Agreements
    Sex Harassment
    Sexual Assault
    Sexual Harassment
    Sick Leave
    Silenced No More
    Silicon Valley
    Silicon Valley Bank
    Southern California
    Speaking Engagement
    Speak Out Act
    Strike
    Super Lawyers
    Supreme Court
    Symposium
    Teamsters
    Tech
    Teukolsky
    Teukolsky Law
    The Guardian
    Thomasina Gross
    Toolkit
    Training
    Transgender
    Troester
    Twitter
    Uber
    Ucla
    UFCW
    Union
    Unions
    Unite Here
    Unite Here Local 11
    USC
    U.S. Soccer
    Vacation Time
    Viking River
    Wage And Hour
    Wage-and-hour
    Wage Gap
    Whistleblower
    Women
    Workers
    Workers Compensation
    Wrongful Termination

    RSS Feed

Privacy Policy

Home

About

Blog

Contact

Teukolsky Law, A Professional Corporation, represents clients throughout California.  Ms. Teukolsky is admitted to practice in the State of California, as well as the United States Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Northern District of California and Central District of California.  Disclaimer. 
​
Copyright © 2017
  • Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • Practice Areas
  • Contact
  • Testimonials