UNITE HERE Local 11, a labor union representing stadium hospitality workers, secured a major victory by ratifying a historic collective bargaining agreement with Legends Global, the food service provider for SoFi Stadium. On June 11, 2026, workers overwhelmingly approved the contract with a 99.6% vote, averting a high-profile strike that threatened to disrupt the stadium's opening FIFA world cup matches in Inglewood, California. The union leveraged the intense pressure of the upcoming global soccer event after its membership voted to authorize a walkout just a week prior.

The newly approved contract delivers substantial economic and systemic protections for the stadium's estimated 2,000 hospitality workers. Financially, the agreement guarantees significant wage increases over the next two years, while tipped employees like bartenders and servers will receive a 30 percent pay raise. Beyond standard compensation, the contract addresses critical civil liberties concerns. Crucially, the union secured robust privacy protections regarding workers' immigration status, a direct response to the planned deployment of federal Department of Homeland Security personnel at World Cup venues. The contract also guarantees workers the right to walk off the job if federal immigration enforcement actions threaten their safety.

Lauren Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, partnering with UNITE HERE Local 11 on several employment-law 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. If you would like to speak with her about a labor matter, click here.

Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed Executive Order N-6-26, establishing a structured state framework to analyze and prepare for the economic effects of artificial intelligence (AI) automation on workers and businesses. California houses 33 of the world’s top private AI companies, making it a central hub for the technology's development. As AI tools increasingly integrate into everyday business operations, state policymakers are focusing on how this shift impacts the broader labor market.

The executive order does not create immediate mandates for private employers, but it directs state agencies to study the technology and recommend future policy changes. Under the order's timeline, the state plans to launch a public dashboard by August 2026 to track AI-related job shifts using unemployment data. By November 2026, the Labor and Workforce Development Agency is tasked with proposing updates to California's mass layoff laws, specifically the WARN Act, to account for workforce reductions triggered by technological displacement.

State agencies are also instructed to research various economic models and retraining strategies to manage this transition. This includes exploring options for mandatory severance standards, and developing an "AI Playbook" to help the Employment Development Department modernize its job-training programs. The order also calls for a review of how unionized workplaces handle AI integration through collective bargaining agreements.
​
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, The Guardian, and the Los Angeles Times. If you would like to speak with her about an employment matter, click here.

On June 9, 2026, the Faster Labor Contracts Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives in a bipartisan vote. The bill secured majority support from 210 democrats and 20 republicans. It now heads to the U.S. Senate, where it already enjoys notable bipartisan backing, including a companion bill sponsored by Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO).

The bill is designed to prevent employers from dragging out or stalling negotiations when workers form a new union. Existing law requires employers to negotiate with unions in “good faith”, but it lacks an official deadline for a deal to be reached. Supporters of the bill pointed to data showing that unions and employers takes around 400 days on average to reach their first collective bargaining agreement. To eliminate these prolonged delays, the bill establishes a strict, mandatory timeline that forces both sides into mediation and arbitration if talks stall.

Under the bill, employers must begin negotiating within 10 days of receiving a written request from a new union. If a deal isn’t agreed upon within 90 days of starting talks, either side may request mediation through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) for a 30-day mediation window. If mediation fails after the 30-day period, the FMCS would refer the dispute to a three-person arbitration panel. The panel is comprised of one representative chosen by the workers, one representative chosen by the employer, and one neutral third party. These three members will write the collective bargaining agreement terms, which would impose a legally binding two-year deal.
​
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, The Guardian, and the Los Angeles Times. If you would like to speak with her about an employment matter, 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. 

California lawmakers have advanced a bill that would allow the state to protect labor relations and unionization efforts traditionally handled by the federal government. The bill comes amid a crisis at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which was left nonfunctional earlier this year. In February 2025, President Donald Trump dismissed a member of the NLRB, leaving the five-member Board without a quorum necessary to conduct business. With the board left paralyzed, the NLRB’s backlog of unaddressed cases continues to grow. States are now beginning to look at alternative ways to protect labor rights.

California Assembly Bill 288 is intended to circumvent the NLRB by significantly expanding the powers of the state’s Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB currently handles only public sector labor disputes. The proposed law would grant PERB authority to hear labor matters affecting private-sector workers if a case brought to the NLRB does not receive a response in six months. Once signed into law, AB 288 allows workers to petition PERB to rule on unfair labor practices, certify a union, order employers to bargain, and impose civil penalties. The law does not create new rights. Instead, it creates a parallel enforcement process in the absence of an NLRB quorum.

The bill was sent to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk and is awaiting his signature. Union sponsors of the bill are urging Governor Newsom to sign it into law. "Under AB 288, when the NLRB is unable or unwilling to act, the state will step in to enforce the law and ensure that workers who want a union actually get a union," said Lorena Gonzalez, President of the California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO.
​
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 a labor matter, click here.

The State of California has reached a deal with Uber and Lyft to allow rideshare drivers to unionize.  As part of the deal, the two companies will support AB 1340, which creates a framework for drivers to unionize. In exchange, California’s legislators will back a measure sponsored by Uber and Lyft to cut insurance requirements for their drivers.

AB 1340 allows unions to trigger an election by presenting proof that at least 10% of active drivers support the union. If 30% of drivers vote in favor of unionizing, the state will automatically certify the union. Notably, AB 1340 does not reclassify rideshare drivers as employees, a goal of labor advocates. Instead, drivers will keep their independent contractor classification, depriving them of minimum wage protections and workers compensations insurance, among other employee protections. The bill is now headed to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk, and he is expected to sign.

The deal could mark the end of years of litigation over the employee status of rideshare drivers. In 2018, the California Supreme Court handed down a ruling making it easier for workers to prove they were misclassified as independent contractors. California then passed a law codifying the Supreme Court’s ruling. But in 2020, voters then passed Prop 22, a ballot initiative funded by Uber and Lyft to classify drivers as independent contractors.

In return for supporting the union deal, California’s State Senate President, Mike McGuire, and California Assembly Speaker, Robert Rivas, agreed to back Senate Bill 371, a measure that cuts insurance obligations for rideshare drivers from $1 million to $60,000 per driver, making service cheaper.
​
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 a wage-and-hour matter, click here.

Several cities spanning southern California have enacted minimum wage increases effective July 1, 2025. While the state’s minimum wage is set at $16.50, many local jurisdictions have enacted higher minimum wages in response to the increased cost of living in the state. According to the Living Wage Calculator from MIT, an individual would need to earn at least $27.81 an hour working full-time to cover basic necessities while living in Los Angeles County by themselves. On July 1, 2025, the minimum wage rate per hour for the city of Los Angeles will be set at just $17.87. 

The City of Los Angeles has also implemented industry-specific minimum wage increases. On May 27, 2025, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass signed an ordinance dubbed the Olympic Wage. The ordinance establishes a $22.50 minimum wage increase for airport and hotel workers effective July 1, 2025, and sets a path for a $30 minimum wage by the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The ordinance encountered pushback from business groups. A coalition of airline, hotel, and concession companies are circulating a petition to force a citywide vote on the ordinance. They argue that the increasing the minimum wage hurts small businesses in the tourism industry who will be forced to lay off workers. To successfully force a citywide referendum, the petition needs about 93,000 signatures within 30 days to be placed on the ballot in an upcoming election.

Some labor unions have launched a “Defend the Wage LA” campaign to defend the ordinance. UNITE HERE Local 11, a union representing hotel and restaurant workers, lobbied for the passage of the minimum wage ordinance. Their represented workers rallied on June 4, 2025, at Los Angeles City Hall to oppose the referendum and urging voters to not sign the petition. The union issued a news release stating:

“Rather than paying workers what they deserve, the industry which has already spent over 1 million dollars to stop their workers from earning a livable wage, is expected to spend millions more on this referendum”
​
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.

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. 

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.

On April 2, Teukolsky Law filed a class action lawsuit against Hotel Figueroa, alleging the hotel and its operators violated Los Angeles’s Hotel Worker Retention Ordinance when they failed to protect workers’ jobs after the hotel’s food and beverage operator, Noble 33, abruptly laid off all of its employees in February 2024.

The Hotel Worker Retention Ordinance was enacted to protect hotel workers affected by mass layoffs, which frequently occur when corporate ownership or management of a hotel changes. When employees are laid off following such a change, the Ordinance requires hotels and their operators to retain employees for a brief transitional period to ensure employment stabilization and reduce demands on social services.

In the case of Hotel Figueroa, more than 100 workers lost their jobs after Noble 33 decided to cease operations at the hotel days after the staff notified management of their intent to unionize. Noble 33 was quickly replaced by a new operator, The Botanical Group, but the lawsuit alleges that none of its former non-management staff were retained, including Maria Ibarra, a former cook for Noble 33.

Hotel Figueroa operates out of one of downtown Los Angeles’s most famous buildings, a 14 floor Spanish Mediterranean property that also houses upscale restaurants such as Café Fig and La Casita. The dispute at the hotel may be indicative of a broader Southern California trend of food workers standing up to their employers and alleging labor and employment law violations.
​
For UNITE HERE Local 11’s press release on Ms. Ibarra’s lawsuit, click here. For more on Ms. Teukolsky  and her practice, click here.