Lauren Teukolsky will speak at the Sixth Annual CLE Conference on Gender Discrimination and Harassment Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law. The conference is on Thursday, January 23, 2025, and Friday, January 24, 2025. Berkeley’s Center on Comparative Equality and Anti-Discrimination Law is hosting  the conference, which will explore new developments in gender discrimination and harassment law in California and other jurisdictions. Ms. Teukolsky is scheduled to speak on forced arbitration of employment claims, alongside David Lowe, a Partner at Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe, and Steve Tindall, a Partner at Gibbs Law Group. Topics covered will include a new federal law excluding sexual harassment and sexual assault claims from arbitration (the “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021”), and recent cases that interpret its scope. 

​Ms. Teukolsky has worked to protect employees’ rights for over two decades and regularly speaks at conferences on employment law. Last September, Ms. Teukolsky was selected to moderate a session at CELA’s (California Employment Lawyer Association) 36th Annual Employment Law Conference on individual wage-and-hour arbitrations. 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.

Ms. Teukolsky’s panel takes place on Friday, January 24, 2025, at 1:30 PM PT at The International House in Berkeley. To register for the conference, 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 will speak at the UCLA Law Women LEAD Leadership Summit on Friday, September 27th. UCLA Law Women LEAD is an inclusive, intersectional community of UCLA Law women who aid each other in life and career. The group is hosting the Leadership Summit’s tenth anniversary which brings UCLA Law professors, alumni, and students from around the world to discuss important topics in the law. Ms. Teukolsky will speak on a panel discussing how to assess, litigate, and triumph in PAGA litigation after AB 2288 and SB 92. She will speak alongside Emily Gould Sullivan, Vice President of Legal at Ross Stores, Inc., and Tritia Murata, Partner at David Wright Termaine LLP.
 
Ms. Teukolsky has previously discussed the impact of these bills on PAGA litigation in a Bloomberg Law article . She is a frequent speaker on employment law topics. Last September, Ms. Teukolsky was selected to moderate a session at CELA’s (California Employment Lawyer Association) 36th Annual Employment Law Conference on individual wage-and-hour arbitrations. She has spoken a number of times on PAGA, including for the California Lawyers Association, CELA, the Alameda County Bar Association and Beverly Hills Bar Association. Her commentary on the effects of the California Supreme Court decision Adolph v. Uber on PAGA claims was also featured in articles by Bloomberg Law and Law.com.
 
Ms. Teukolsky’s panel starts at 1:25 pm PT at UCLA’s Schoenberg Hall. To register for the Leadership Summit, 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 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.

Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the July 2024 edition of the CLA California Labor and Employment Law Review. Her column describes five recent decisions from California’s Supreme Court and appellate courts that affect wage-and-hour law. Among the decisions are rulings regarding minimum wage for pretrial detainees, arbitration agreements that exclude PAGA claims, and the standard for awarding penalties for inaccurate paystubs.

Ms. Teukolsky’s column also discusses whether employees without individual PAGA claims have standing to pursue PAGA claims on behalf of others, and whether employers waive their right to arbitration of individual PAGA claims if they do not move to compel arbitration in a timely manner.

CLA (California Lawyers Association) is a voluntary statewide bar association. Its mission is to “promote excellence, diversity and inclusion in the legal profession and fairness in access to justice and the rule of law.”  Ms. Teukolsky was recently appointed to serve on the Executive Committee of CLA’s Labor & Employment Section.  Her three-year term starts 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.

Wage-and-hour law is an ever-evolving field with frequent rulings that regularly reshape the legal landscape. Ms. Teukolsky has navigated those rulings for over 20 years and is an expert in both state and federal wage-and-hour law. She speaks frequently on wage-and-hour topics at national and state conferences and is regularly quoted by media outlets for her insights on the topic.

To read Ms. Teukolsky’s article in its entirety, click here. If you would like to speak with Ms. Teukolsky about a wage-and-hour matter, click here.

Earlier this week, Lauren Teukolsky was appointed to the California Lawyers Association (CLA) Labor & Employment section’s Executive Committee. CLA is a statewide bar association with a mission to “promote excellence, diversity and inclusion in the legal profession and fairness in access to justice and the rule of law.”

The Executive Committee for CLA’s Labor and Employment Section plays a vital role in carrying out the sections’ basic functions in addition to collaborating on delivering programs, publications, services, and benefits to section members.

Executive Committee appointees are nominated by current Executive Committee members. Appointees are evaluated for their accomplishments and their proven commitment to volunteer work that demonstrates a commitment to public service, among other criteria.

Ms. Teukolsky regularly contributes to CLA’s California Labor and Employment Law Review, where her “Wage and Hour Case Notes” are published on an alternating quarterly basis.
​
Ms. Teukolsky’s three-year appointment on the Executive Committee will begin on September 8, 2024. 

​Earlier this month, Bloomberg Law quoted Lauren Teukolsky in an article about the California Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services.  The case involved a security guard who was provided with on-duty meal breaks.  After Spectrum fired him for leaving his post for a meal break, Naranjo sued for missed meal break premiums.  He sought an hour of premium pay for each day he missed a break.  After many years of litigation, the California Supreme Court held in a 2022 decision that Naranjo was permitted to seek penalties under Labor Code 226, which requires employers to provide accurate pay stubs listing all wages earned in a pay period.  Spectrum’s failure to list premium pay for missed breaks could entitle Naranjo to 226 penalties if Spectrum’s violation was “knowing and intentional.”

In the most recent California Supreme Court decision, issued on May 7, 2024, the Court held that Spectrum’s violations were not “knowing and intentional” because it reasonably believed in good faith that it had a defense to the requirement to pay missed meal premiums. 

The Court held that “if an employer reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing a complete and accurate wage statement in compliance with the requirements of section 226, then it has not knowingly and intentionally failed to comply with the wage statement law.” Going forward, employees will likely need to prove one of three things to recover 226 penalties: (1) the employer’s failure to report wages or hours on a pay stub was made in bad faith; (2) the employer’s defense was objectively unreasonable; or (3) the employer’s defense was unsupported by any evidence. 

In the Bloomberg Law article, Ms. Teukolsky discusses the significance of the ruling for California’s workers:

“The ruling isn’t ‘a death sentence’ for the ability of workers to recoup California wage and hour penalties, but it does place ‘a slightly higher burden on plaintiffs who want to recover those penalties,’ said Pasadena-based employee-side attorney Lauren Teukolsky.”
​
The article continues:

“’I don’t think it signals a shift in thinking among the California Supreme Court,’ Teukolsky said. ‘I view it as an incremental change in the standards that govern the imposition of penalties under California law. It’s not a sea change.’

Bloomberg Law’s article also includes thoughts from Ms. Teukolsky on how plaintiff-side employment attorneys will need to adapt to the Court’s ruling. Naranjo’s potential impact on PAGA claims is also discussed. 

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 Law360, Law.com, and the Los Angeles Times. Most recently, Ms. Teukolsky was quoted in a February Bloomberg Law article on the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC.
​
To read Bloomberg Law’s article in its entirety, click here. To get in touch with our office, click here. 

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a ban on noncompete agreements for nearly all American jobs, a measure that may have a significant impact on the country’s workers.

Noncompetes prohibit workers from quitting to go work for a competitor in the same industry, sharing proprietary information with new employers, and using proprietary information, such as customer lists, to start their own businesses.  Noncompete provisions often take the form of exploitative clauses in employment agreements, though companies do sometimes present their employees with agreements purely dedicated to noncompete provisions.

An estimated 30 million American workers — ranging from hair stylists and security guards to scientists and doctors — are subject to noncompetes.

The FTC is a federal agency created to protect the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods of competition. In the FTC’s announcement of the ban, the agency’s Chair, Biden-appointee Lina M. Khan, said that noncompetes “keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism, including from the more than 8,500 new startups that would be created a year once noncompetes are banned.”

For over a decade, California’s workers have benefitted from state laws prohibiting noncompete agreements. 
​
The FTC’s new ban is set to take effect in August 2024. Because it is a federal ban, all employees in the country will be subject to the ban’s provisions (except for senior executives who have already entered into noncompetes). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country’s largest business lobbying group, has already challenged the FTC’s ban in federal court. 

This week, Lauren Teukolsky received the Avvo Clients’ Choice Award. The award is given to attorneys who receive at least five reviews of four stars or greater on Avvo, a site that allows people to search for and review attorneys across the country. Ms. Teukolsky has received six five-star reviews in 2024 alone. 

Ms. Teukolsky believes in a client-centered approach to lawyering, always putting the needs of her clients first.  She accepts only a small number of cases for representation each year, and devotes a significant amount of time to each case.  There is no one-size-fits-all approach to lawyering, and Ms. Teukolsky listens carefully to her clients before advising them about the best course of action.
   
Ms. Teukolsky launched Teukolsky Law in 2017 after nearly two decades of work for some of California's most prestigious civil rights firms and organizations. Since opening Teukolsky Law, she has remained committed to the state’s workers, successfully representing employees in a variety of wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, and class action wage-and-hour matters, among other practice areas.
​
In addition to the recent Avvo accolade, Ms. Teukolsky has been recognized for her work by Super Lawyers for 12 consecutive years. In 2022, Ms. Teukolsky was elected as a Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, the premier peer-selected organization of labor and employment lawyers in the United States.

To learn more about Ms. Teukolsky’s practice, click here. To view reviews of Ms. Teukolsky on Avvo, click here. 

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.