Starting January 1, 2026, California workers will be protected by several new laws. In Part 1 of our 2026 employment law update, we discuss three new laws that are set to take effect in the new year.
​
SB 648 makes tips and gratuities the sole property of the employee. Tips cannot be deducted, withheld, or taken from workers who earn them. The law also creates a new enforcement mechanism for the California labor commissioner to prosecute tip and gratuity claims. Previously, while the labor commissioner could investigate wage theft, they lacked the authority to issue direct citations for tip violations. Effective January 1, 2026, SB 648 closes this gap, allowing the labor commissioner to issue citations and file civil actions against employers for unlawful tip practices.

SB 513 expands the definition of “personnel records” to include training documentation. California law already requires employers to provide employees with their personnel files on request. Historically, however, employers have not disclosed records of safety certification or specialized software training, making it difficult for workers to prove their qualifications to future employers.  Now, employers are required to give a copy of all education and training documentation to employees upon request. The documents must include the trainer’s name, the duration of the training, and the "core competencies" gained.

SB 617 strengthens the California WARN Act by requiring employers to disclose whether they plan to coordinate transition services to workers during mass layoffs or relocations. In their 60-day notice of an impending layoff, employers must include detailed information about CalFresh, specific contact info for local job centers, and detailed information regarding any efforts to coordinate job placement with local workforce boards.

Stay tuned for part 2 of our series, which will discuss additional new laws going into effect in 2026.

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 believe you have a wage-and-hour claim, click here to get in touch with our office. 

The California Court of Appeal recently issued a significant decision in Lorenzo v. San Francisco Zen Center, ruling that the "ministerial exception" does not shield religious organizations from minimum wage lawsuits. The case involved Annette Lorenzo, a former staff member at the San Francisco Sōtō Zen Buddhist church. Lorenzo performed religious duties, such as meditation and temple cleaning, but she also performed commercial work, including cooking, dishwashing, and serving guests. After leaving the church in 2019, she filed a claim alleging the Zen Center had illegally underpaid her for this commercial work.
​
The Zen Center argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the ministerial exception, a rule that protects churches from lawsuits that interfere with religious doctrine or the hiring of ministers. The Court of Appeal disagreed. The court reasoned that unlike wrongful termination cases, wage-and-hour claims do not force the court to intervene in a church's faith or internal doctrine. Since the Zen Center could not prove that paying staff minimum wage interfered with its religious mission, the court ruled in Lorenzo’s favor, allowing her wage claim to move forward.

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. She is Co-Chair of the Amicus Committee of the California Employment Lawyers Association, which submitted an amicus brief in favor of Lorenzo’s argument that the ministerial exception did not bar her claim for wage-and-hour violations. If you believe you have a wage-and-hour claim, click here to get in touch with our office. 

Lauren Teukolsky is set to speak at the 2026 New Employment Law Practitioner Conference on Wage & Hour Basics. The virtual conference will take place on February 5-6, 2026 and is hosted by the California Lawyers Association’s Labor and Employment Law Section.

The conference is designed for new attorneys, professionals transitioning into labor or employment law, and HR practitioners. Attendees will receive practical and foundational guidance to help them confidently navigate the complexities of wage-and-hour rules and the broader field of employment law.

Ms. Teukolsky has worked to protect employees’ rights for over two decades and speaks regularly at conferences on employment law. In the past year, Ms. Teukolsky spoke at the CLA Advanced Wage & Hour Conference on the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”); a conference at the Berkeley Law School  on sexual harassment; and a LACBA symposium on PAGA.  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 register for the CLA Conference on February 5-6, 2026, click here.  If you believe you’ve been treated unlawfully in the workplace and want to get in touch with our office, click here.
​

Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the November 2025 edition of the California Labor and Employment Law Review. Her column describes recent decisions from California’s appellate courts that affect wage-and-hour law, including Iloff v. LaPaille, a California Supreme Court case that makes it easier for employees to prove minimum wage violations.

The California Lawyers Association (CLA) is a voluntary statewide bar association. 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 every other quarter. 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.

Lauren Teukolsky of Teukolsky Law, APC was recently honored with a 2025 Service Award by the California Employment Lawyers Association (CELA). CELA selected Ms. Teukolsky based on her “leadership and service on numerous CELA Committees and dedication to the rights of working people.”

CELA is a statewide organization of more than 1,300 California attorneys who devote the majority of their practices to representing employees in individual and class action employment cases. CELA works to protect and expand the legal rights of workers through litigation, education, and advocacy. 

Ms. Teukolsky has more than 20 years of experience litigating employment cases. She has been a CELA member since 2002. She served as Co-Chair of CELA’s Wage & Hour Committee from 2019-2021, and currently serves on the Amicus Committee. 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 learn more about Ms. Teukolsky, click here. If you believe you have been wrongfully terminated, harassed, or suffered from other unlawful workplace practices, click here to get in touch with our office.  

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.

Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the July 2025 edition of the CLA California Labor and Employment Law Review. Her column describes four recent decisions from California’s appellate courts that affect wage-and-hour law, including Williams v. Alacrity Solutions, a PAGA case that will be reviewed by the California Supreme Court in coming months.

California Lawyers Association (CLA) is a voluntary statewide bar association. 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.

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a June 13 Law360 article discussing Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, a new case issued by the California Court of Appeal holding that employers may lawfully obtain prospective meal break waivers from their employees for shifts lasting 5-6 hours.
​
The state’s Labor Code requires employers to provide a 30-minute unpaid meal break for shifts longer than five hours or pay a penalty when breaks are not provided. Employees may forgo the break on shifts lasting six hours or less. In response, some employers have implemented blanket meal break waivers under which employees prospectively waive their right to a break on all future shifts lasting 5-6 hours. The question presented in Bradsbery was whether the employer may obtain a blanket waiver covering all future shifts, or whether the employer must obtain a waiver on a shift-by-shift basis. The court said that blanket waivers are permissible.

Ms. Teukolsky was quoted by Law360 explaining the real-world reasons a worker may choose to take or waive a break. “A worker might waive a meal break if they want to get through work faster,” she told Law360. “There may be some days that the employee really needs a break, especially if they're doing heavy lifting, manual labor, they work outside, they work in the Southern California sun. But other times, they might prefer to skip a meal break so they can leave work earlier, such as to pick up kids from school, run a personal errand or get to a second job.”

Some plaintiffs’ attorneys have argued that workers need to provide consent to waive a meal break daily. They raise concerns about the power imbalance between workers and employers that could lead workers to sign blanket waivers due to coercion or a lack of informed consent, especially if the employer requires the employee to sign the waiver as a condition of employment. Employers argue that it reduces the administrative burden of having workers sign a waiver every day.

Addressing the Bradsbery decision, Teukolsky noted that while the case touched on the validity of blanket waivers, it did not consider any argument that the waivers were unconscionable or obtained through coercion. “Because the unconscionability argument was not at issue in Bradsbery, this might not be the best case for the high court to take on the issue,” she said.

To read the Law360 article, click here. If you believe that you have not been paid proper wages or received lawful breaks, click here to get in touch with our office. 

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.

​Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the March 2025 edition of the CLA California Labor and Employment Law Review. Her column describes two recent decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States and California’s appellate court that affect wage-and-hour law.

Ms. Teukolsky’s column discusses a new U.S. Supreme Court opinion about an employer’s required burden of proof to classify workers as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The column also discusses Leeper v Shipt, a recent California appellate decision addressing the “headless” PAGA phenomenon. The court held that a PAGA plaintiff may not disclaim individual relief to avoid arbitration. On February 26, a different California appellate panel criticized Leeper, holding that “headless” PAGA cases are permitted. Ms. Teukolsky predicts the California Supreme Court will soon address “headless” PAGA cases given the split of authority.

California Lawyers Association (CLA) is a voluntary statewide bar association. 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.