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. 

Lauren Teukolsky was recently quoted in a Law 360 article about an ongoing legal challenge to California Assembly Bill 5 (A.B. 5). A.B. 5 requires all workers to be classified as employees, not independent contractors, unless they meet the criteria of a three-pronged test. Employers have brought multiple challenges to the law on free speech, equal protection, and preemption grounds. The latest challenge to the law comes from the trucking industry in a bid to avoid classifying motor carriers as employees.

Ms. Teukolsky explains that employee classification requires employers to provide protection and benefits like overtime pay, minimum wage, workers compensation, and unemployment insurance.

The Law 360 article quoted Ms. Teukolsky, who said: “Companies save a lot of money by misclassifying their workers as independent contractors, so it does not surprise me to see that companies are bringing every type of challenge they can to A.B. 5. It just shows you how important the law is in providing these really essential worker protections."

Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades, including in employee misclassification 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.

A slate of new protections for workers are now on Gavin Newsom’s desk as the 2023-2024 California legislative session officially ends. The dedicated advocacy of California Employment Lawyers Association has resulted in several promising measures one signature away from bringing new protections to California’s workers.
​
Expanding Protections for Household Domestic Services
SB-1350 expands the California Occupational Safety and Health Act’s definition of “employment” to include household domestic services. The amended definition permits California to enforce and administer all occupational health and safety laws to protect employees performing household services. Previously, domestic workers were explicitly exempted from traditional worker protections.
These protections are critical for the domestic service industry. In the California, domestic workers are largely migrants and women of color.  The state contains an estimated 350,000 workers for 2 million households. These workers provide care to the most vulnerable populations of immunocompromised and senior individuals. They suffer the consequences of poor labor protection. A majority of surveyed household domestic workers (84%) have reported preventable musculoskeletal injuries and chronic pain, and over half of the surveyed workers (55%) reported working through their injuries due to fears about job security.

Intersectionality in Anti-Discrimination Protections
SB-1137 expands civil right protections in public schooling, public accommodations, housing, and employment. While the law currently affords protections against discrimination based on a protected trait, this bill expands those protections for any combination of two or more protected traits.
Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, the bill sponsor, recognized that individuals with intersectional identities could face discrimination that does not neatly fall into any single  category of discrimination. The bill is a common-sense reform that addresses this “intersectional discrimination” against Californians with overlapping identities. Advocates argue that the recognition of intersectional discrimination has judicial precedent. The EEOC and the Ninth Circuit have already recognized that protected characteristics can overlap creating an entirely unique form of discrimination.

Enhancing Employment Protections for Survivors of Violence
AB-2499 provides greater employment protections for survivors of violence.  Existing law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for a survivor of violence or crime. Pre-existing protections forbid employers from discharging or discriminating against employees because of their status as a survivor of crime, abuse, or for taking time off to serve on a jury or as a witness in a judicial proceeding.
Amending existing law, this bill revises the definition of an unlawful employment practice under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to include discrimination or retaliation against an employee for taking protected time off. California’s Civil Rights Department would have enforcement authority over violations of jury, court, and victim time off provisions. This bill addresses the growing impact of crime on employees. One in six victims of violent crime report job loss or demotion and 53% of domestic violence survivors report job loss due to their circumstances.

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 recently quoted in a Bloomberg Law article about the new PAGA reform package passed by the California Legislature in early July 2024. The package represents a compromise between businesses and labor groups that aims to strengthen worker protections while allowing employers to cure violations and face lower penalties. The reformed law, decades-long in the making, avoids a contentious ballot measure that would have repealed PAGA entirely if passed.

Several measures of the reform package benefit workers.  If a PAGA plaintiff recovers penalties for Labor Code violations, aggrieved employees get to keep 35% of the penalties, up from 25% under the previous law.  As before, the remainder of penalties are paid to the State.  Workers are also authorized to seek injunctive relief (i.e., a court order to require an employer to stop an unlawful practice), a remedy not authorized by the previous law. 

Other measures favor employers. Subject to limited exceptions, employees are now permitted to seek penalties only for Labor Code violations they have actually suffered.  Previously, an employee who suffered one type of violation could file a PAGA suit on behalf of other employees for any violation of the Labor Code.

A crucial aspect of the PAGA reform package is the early evaluation conference, theoretically aimed at reducing litigation length and costs. Now, large employers with more than 100 employees can request an early evaluation conference which halts ongoing litigation until a neutral third party assess the plaintiff’s claims, the company’s efforts to comply with the Labor Code, and plans to cure violations. Smaller employers may access a similar process through the Labor and Workforce Development Agency.  If employers can demonstrate they have cured the violations, PAGA penalties may be capped.

PAGA practitioners and courts will need to grapple with setting up early evaluation conferences in the months to come.  The reform package does not dictate how courts are supposed to implement the early evaluation program, leading PAGA practitioners like Ms. Teukolsky to wonder how courts with limited resources will implement such programs, especially in the face of recent budget cuts that have slashed court services. 

The Bloomberg article quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying,  “While courts that frequently handle PAGA lawsuits, like Los Angeles Superior Court, probably will establish high functioning evaluation programs, it’s less clear what will happen with smaller courts that don’t see as much of that kind of litigation.”   

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.

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