Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in an August 26th article by Law360 about the Hotel Worker Protection Ordinance (HWPO) that recently went into effect in Los Angeles on August 12th. The ordinance seeks to protect Los Angeles’ hotel workers by mandating extra compensation when they are required to clean more than a certain amount of square footage in a given day.  The ordinance also requires that they be provided with “panic buttons” given the high rates of sexual assault experienced by hotel workers.

The HWPO requires hotel employers with 45 or more guest rooms to pay their workers double-time rates for all hours worked in a day if they clean more than a certain amount of square footage. For hotels with 45-60 guest rooms, workers must be paid double-time rates if they exceed 4,000 square feet of floor space cleaned in an 8-hour day. At hotels with more than 60 quest rooms, employees must be paid double-time rates if they exceed 3,500 square feet of floor space cleaned. HWPO also requires that hotel employers keep a record of all workers, the rooms they cleaned, the square footage of those rooms and other information and maintain those records for three years. These requirements aim to ensure that hotel workers are fairly compensated for work that is often long and difficult.

The articles states, “Lauren Teukolsky of Teukolsky Law, who has represented hotel workers, said the housekeeping job is onerous and often subject to scheduling changes. ‘You have situations where the hotel employer will require housekeepers to clean a very high number of rooms in their eight-hour shift, and it's very stressful,’ Teukolsky said. ‘It's very difficult for housekeepers to meet the quotas that are imposed,’” among other quotes from Ms. Teukolsky.
​
If you are a hotel worker in Los Angeles and believe that your employer may be violating the Hotel Worker Protection Ordinance, click here to get in touch with Teukolsky Law. 

Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the July 2022 edition of the California Labor and Employment Review, describing seven new decisions from California and U.S. appellate courts that affect wage and hour law. The column discusses whether trial courts may dismiss PAGA claims on manageability grounds, the proper application of the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine, a district court’s error in determining whether CAFA jurisdictional threshold was met, the proper application of the “ABC” test in jury instructions, and a good-faith defense to the imposition of waiting time penalties. 

Wage-and-hour law is a dynamic field, with new appellate decisions that regularly reshape the legal landscape.  Ms. Teukolsky is an expert in California wage-and-hour law, and speaks regularly on wage-and-hour topics at national and state conferences.

If you would like to consult with Ms. Teukolsky on a wage-and-hour matter, use this page to get in touch.

In the March 2022 edition of the California Labor & Employment Review, Lauren Teukolsky published the "Wage and Hour Case Notes," describing five new decisions from California's appellate courts that impact wage-and-hour law.  The column includes a discussion of notice requirements for Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") cases, the application of California's paystub requirements to flight attendants, the legal standard for reviewing PAGA settlements, whether pizza delivery drivers are exempt from arbitration, and whether non-profits may use unpaid volunteers.  

Wage-and-hour law is a dynamic field, with new appellate decisions that regularly reshape the legal landscape.  Ms. Teukolsky is an expert in California wage-and-hour law, and speaks regularly on wage-and-hour topics at national and state conferences.

If you would like to consult with Ms. Teukolsky on a wage-and-hour matter, you can use this page to get in touch.

Bloomberg Law published an article on July 22, 2021 about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling that Amazon must pay workers for time they spend waiting in security lines. The article discusses some recent trends and litigation in California regarding employees’ right to be compensated for short time periods, known as “de minimis” time. This could include time that employees spend in pandemic-related health screening, and time employees spend texting or emailing on their smartphones while off the clock. Lauren Teukolsky is quoted in the article discussing the Troester ruling, which eliminated the de minimis exception.

The article states: “In California, the Troester ruling that eliminated the de minimis exception has sparked worker lawsuits based on allegations of doing short tasks after hours, such as responding to emails and texts, said Lauren Teukolsky, an attorney at Teukolsky Law PC who represents workers.”

If you believe you have not been compensated properly at work, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

Today, the California Senate voted to approve AB 3080, a bill that would prohibit employers from requiring their employees to arbitrate employment-related claims against their employers. Under current law, employers can require their employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.  Arbitration is a private court system without judges and juries.  Instead, arbitrators -- usually retired judges -- are paid to adjudicate claims.  Arbitrations are usually confidential, and held in hotel conference rooms or other private locations.  If the bill becomes law, employers in California will no longer be allowed to require employees to give up their right to go to court.  Instead, employees will be able to sue their employers in court for discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and a host of other claims that employees can bring under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, one of the strongest anti-discrimination laws in the country.  Employers will also be prohibited from requiring employees to arbitrate wage-and-hour claims under the California Labor Code.

Governor Brown has until September 30 to sign or veto the bill.  If he signs AB 3080 into law, it will almost certainly be challenged by employers as contrary to the Federal Arbitration Act, a federal law which expresses a preference for cases to be resolved through private arbitration.  Nonetheless, today's Senate vote is a huge win for employees.  Many of our clients have no idea that they have signed arbitration agreements giving up their rights to sue their employers in court.  Forced arbitration agreements are contrary to American values, and should be ended.