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.

The Inland Empire’s local NPR affiliate, KVCR News, covered a recent lawsuit filed by Teukolsky Law against Amazon on behalf of Juan Loera, a former San Bernardino warehouse employee who sustained life-altering injuries after two years of handling heavy cargo. The lawsuit contends Mr. Loera’s condition required medical accommodation, but he was allegedly forced into unpaid leave and eventually terminated via email, causing significant financial hardship for his family.

Data from the Strategic Organizing Center and the National Employment Law Project shows that the serious injury rate at Amazon facilities was nearly double that of its industry competitors in 2024. The company accounted for 56% of all serious industry injuries, often requiring workers to be moved to light duty or to miss work entirely due to the severity of their physical trauma.

As the Inland Empire continues to serve as a global hub for logistics, this case serves as a bellwether for how large-scale employers manage disability accommodations and the protection of workers who exercise their right to demand safer working conditions.

Mr. Loera is represented by Lauren Teukolsky and staff attorneys at The Warehouse Worker Resources Center, a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving working conditions in the warehouse industry in Southern California. Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including in unpaid wage 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.
​
To read the KVCR article, click here. If you believe you’ve been treated unlawfully in the workplace and want to get in touch with our office, click here.

A Law360 article covers a recent lawsuit filed by Teukolsky Law against food service giant Compass Group USA regarding unpaid travel time at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The article highlights the significant amounts of unpaid time airport lounge workers must spend on employer-mandated shuttle buses to travel to their work stations after they pass through TSA security checkpoints.

Plaintiff Ignacio Vazquez and his coworkers work in the remote Terminal R , which is not connected to LAX and can only be accessed by taking a shuttle. The complaint alleges that employees must wait alongside passengers for the shuttle to arrive, take the shuttle across the tarmac (where they are often stopped by passing airplanes), and are allowed to clock in only after they reach their workstations in Terminal R.

A previous employer permitted employees to clock in before they boarded the employer-mandated shuttle bus and be paid for the travel time, but Compass changed this practice, resulting in significant amounts of unpaid time. The lawsuit alleges Compass disciplined employees who attempted to clock in before they boarded the shuttle so they could be paid for the time. As discussed in the Law360 article, employees can lose up to an hour of pay each day navigating the mandatory travel requirements.

Mr. Vazquez and putative class members are represented by Lauren Teukolsky and staff attorneys from UNITE HERE Local 11. Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including in unpaid wage 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.

To read the Law 360 article, click here. If you believe you’ve been treated unlawfully in the workplace and want to get in touch with our office, click here.

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. 

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 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 was quoted in a May 9 Bloomberg Law article on the growing split among federal district courts over how to interpret the Ending Forced Arbitration Act (EFAA). The 2022 law protects workers alleging sexual harassment or assault from mandatory arbitration agreements. More employers are requiring their employees to submit to forced arbitration proceedings as a condition of employment. Yet, mandatory arbitration is often described as a discriminatory one-sided process favoring employers. EFAA solves this problem by voiding arbitration agreements allowing employees to pursue their sexual harassment claims in court.

The debate among district courts is centered on the pleading standard required for the law to apply. Either workers must plead “plausible” claims that are supported by detailed factual allegations or simply a lower standard of “non-frivolous” claims. Employers maintain that the higher threshold of “plausibility” for pleadings stops employees from bringing false or meritless claims to court. Some plaintiff-side lawyers have argued that employers are raising an improper defense by challenging the sufficiency of a worker’s pleadings when the real focus should be on the question of arbitration.
​
Bloomberg Law quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying that motions to dismiss or strike a claim are the proper “procedural mechanisms that defendants are supposed to use if they think that the allegations of a complaint are insufficient.”  

Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including sexual assault and harassment cases. Her commentary on the latest developments in employment law is regularly featured by major publications such as Daily Journal, Law360, Law.com, and the Los Angeles Times.
​
To read the Bloomberg Law article, click here. If you believe you have faced sexual assault or harassment at work, or have questions about arbitration, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

California lawmakers have introduced several labor bills for the 2025-2026 legislative session. Here is a breakdown of three significant bills:

S.B. 642 would amend the California Equal Pay Act to require employers to provide a more precise pay scale in job postings. The pay range must be within 10% above or below the mean pay rate for the position. By narrowing the pay range, the bill prevents employers from posting excessively wide salary estimates that could obscure actual pay disparities. Additionally, the bill adopts gender-neutral language to describe discriminatory compensation in violation of the Equal Pay Act.

A.B. 962 would prohibit employers from requiring employees to repay training or educational expenses if they choose to leave the job. These "stay-or-pay" contracts often impose financial penalties on low-income workers seeking better opportunities, effectively trapping them in their current positions limiting their mobility and ability to improve their working conditions.

S.B. 590 would extend eligibility for paid family leave to include care for a "designated person," defined as any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is equivalent to a family relationship. Employees can identify this person when filing a claim for benefits. By broadening the definition of family, the bill ensures that more workers can take time off to care for loved ones promoting inclusivity and overall well-being.

These proposed bills reflect California's commitment to a fairer work environment. Workers benefit from greater pay transparency, protection from exploitative contracts, and expanded leave options, while employers are encouraged to adopt more equitable and inclusive policies.​
​
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.