Lauren Teukolsky’s commentary was featured this week in a Bloomberg Law article on a pending case before the California Supreme Court, Adoph v. Uber Techs, Inc. The case is being closely monitored by both employee-side and management-side attorneys because of its potential ramifications for PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) litigation.

In the case, California’s highest court will decide whether aggrieved employees maintain standing to bring “non-individual” PAGA claims against their employers on behalf of similarly aggrieved employees when their individual claims are sent to arbitration, a private, quasi-court forum that is favored by employers.

If the Court rules that such employees maintain their standing, it will clear the way for many employees to continue enforcing the state’s labor laws through PAGA, a 2004 state law that authorizes employees to collect civil penalties for violations against themselves and their coworkers on behalf of California’s Labor Commissioner, which has struggled to manage a backlog of cases for the past several decades.

If the Court rules in Uber’s favor, the outlook for the state’s employees would not be so favorable. The Bloomberg Law article states:

“A ruling in favor of Uber allowing claims to be split into individual and non-individual components could make it more difficult to bring PAGA cases forward, said Lauren Teukolsky, a plaintiff’s lawyer and founder of Teukolsky Law in Pasadena, Calif.

‘It’s going to make PAGA litigation much more cumbersome,’ she said. Teukolsky expects the court to rule this summer or in early fall.”

Ms. Teukolsky also discussed why forcing employees to arbitrate claims is detrimental to them:

“Teukolsky said that arbitration comes at a cost for employees because they waive their civil rights, such as the right to a jury trial and the right to an appeal, when they are asked to sign an arbitration agreement,” the article states.

The case follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana in which a concurring opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that California courts should have the final say in whether employers can force arbitration for representative claims.

To read the article in its entirety, click here. 

Law.com quoted Lauren Teukolsky in a recent article discussing a California appellate court’s ruling in Wood v. Kaiser.  The case holds that workers can use the state’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) to enforce California’s paid sick leave law, (AB 1522).  The law requires employers to provide employees with 24 hours of paid sick leave every year. 

Before the Wood case was decided, it was unclear whether employees could enforce their right to paid sick leave by suing their employer, or whether only the State could bring suit to enforce the law.  This is because the sick leave law does not contain a private right of action but only permits enforcement by the State.  However, PAGA allows employees to stand in the shoes of the State to bring enforcement actions against employers.  Despite this, several lower courts had previously ruled that workers may not use PAGA to enforce the paid sick leave law, leaving workers without any recourse.  The Court of Appeals decision in Wood v. Kaiser effectively overrules those decisions, and represents a victory for workers.

The article states:

“Lauren Teukolsky, an employee-side plaintiffs attorney with Teukolsky Law, said the decision appears to be the first by a California appellate court that specifically addresses the availability of PAGA penalties under the paid sick-leave law.

‘We are all celebrating this victory,’ Teukolsky said in an interview.”

Ms. Teukolsky has represented workers for over two decades. Her commentary on the latest developments in employment law has been featured in articles by Bloomberg Law, Law360, and the Los Angeles Times.
​
To read Law.com’s article in its entirety, click here. If you believe your employer may be violating California’s sick-pay laws, click here to get in touch with Teukolsky Law. 

Law360 quoted Lauren Teukolsky in a February 28 article on the recent nomination of Julie Su to be the next Secretary of Labor.  Su has served as Deputy Labor Secretary since 2021, helping oversee the Department of Labor. Before that, Su was head of California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency and was considered a Labor Secretary candidate, though President Biden ultimately nominated Boston Mayor Marty Walsh for the position. Walsh is leaving to head the National Hockey League’s players’ union.

Under Walsh, the Labor Department supported organized labor and workers through a series of regulatory and legislative actions. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Su is expected to continue the Department’s pro-union and pro-worker stance while also stepping up federal enforcement in the areas of worker classification, independent contractor status, and wage and hour issues. Su is President Biden’s first Asian American cabinet secretary.

Worker attorneys and workers’ advocates have voiced near unanimous support for Su’s nomination. Law360’s article reads as follows:

“Lauren Teukolsky of California-based Teukolsky Law said she has known Su since at least 1998, when Teukolsky was a law student and Su was litigation director of the group now known as Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. At the time, the two of them worked on California's Assembly Bill 633, which implemented wage protections for garment workers.

‘Julie's idea was to extend liability for the wages beyond the contractor, beyond the direct employer, to bigger companies that were higher up the food chain, including garment manufacturers and even, in some instances, garment retailers,’ Teukolsky said.

‘It really demonstrates how she is able to think creatively about a labor enforcement problem in a way that other advocates haven't necessarily thought of before,’ Teukolsky said. ‘She just has this ability to problem-solve and use a mix of legislation, advocacy, court rulings, advocacy in the courtroom, just to use all of these different tools as problem-solver.’”
​
Teukolsky Law congratulates Julie Su on her historic nomination. To learn more, click here to read the Law360 article in its entirety. 

On February 22, the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) ruled that severance agreements preventing laid-off employees from making publicly disparaging statements about their employer are generally illegal.  The NLRB also ruled that severance agreements may not include blanket confidentiality provisions that prevent employees from speaking with anyone else about the terms of the agreement. The ruling overturns a 2020 decision by the then Republican-controlled board that found such agreements were not illegal on their face.

The NLRB is a federal agency tasked with safeguarding employees’ rights and preventing unfair labor practices. The Board’s five members are appointed by the President. During President Biden’s administration, the Democratic-controlled Board’s rulings have largely been worker- and union-friendly.

Wednesday’s ruling is important because it reinstates what until 2020 had been a “longstanding precedent” preventing corporations from asking laid-off employees to waive rights under the National Labor Relations Act in order to receive severance. Under the Board’s recent ruling, employers may no longer withhold severance to silence employees and prevent them from publicly discussing abuses at the workplace, including sexual harassment and assault. Severance agreement clauses preventing employees from discussing workplace misconduct are frequently referred to as “gag” clauses.
​
Lauren Teukolsky has reviewed severance agreements and fought for workers’ rights for over 20 years. If you believe you have received an illegal severance agreement, click here to get in touch with our office. 

Lauren Teukolsky was quoted by Bloomberg Law and Law360 in a pair of articles discussing the class action lawsuit Teukolsky Law filed Wednesday against Hyatt for violating a law meant to protect hotel cleaning staff from being overworked and underpaid. The lawsuit is believed to be the first in the country brought under a “housekeepers bill of rights” law. Ms. Teukolsky represents the plaintiffs along with Zoe Tucker of UNITE HERE Local 11.

“Housekeeper’s bill of rights” laws broadly refer to laws created specifically to protect hotel cleaning staff from abuses at the workplace, including but not limited to wage theft and sexual harassment. The lawsuit filed by Ms. Teukolsky alleges that Hyatt violated the Long Beach Hotel Working Conditions Ordinance when it failed to pay hotel room attendants the required double wages they were owed for cleaning more than 4,000 square feet in a single day, among other violations.

Laws similar to Long Beach’s have been passed in Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and Seattle, in what has become a national trend of local municipalities stepping in to protect workers when their states and the federal government fail to.
Bloomberg Law’s article reads:

“’The voters of Long Beach passed a hotel workload ordinance to guarantee hardworking room attendants a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work,’ Teukolsky said in a statement. ‘As we say in the lawsuit, Hyatt has been flouting the law since the day it was passed.’”

In the Law360 article, Ms. Teukolsky states the following :

"Hotels are on notice that they can't cheat workers out of their wages with impunity.”
​
To read the Bloomberg Law article in its entirety, click here. To read the Law360 article in its entirety, click here.

If you believe that you have not been paid proper wages, click here to get in touch with our office. 

Teukolsky Law filed a class action lawsuit today against the Hyatt Regency Long Beach alleging that Hyatt violated the Long Beach Hotel Working Conditions Initiative (“Initiative”), a measure passed by voters in 2018 to provide protections to hotel workers.  A number of cities have passed similar hotel worker ordinances, including Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Seattle, and Oakland, among others.  This is the first lawsuit in the country brought under one of these “Housekeepers’ Bill of Rights” laws.  Lauren Teukolsky represents the plaintiffs along with Zoe Tucker of UNITE HERE Local 11.

The Initiative protects hotel employees against the risk of sexual assault by requiring hotels to provide them with panic buttons, and to post notices on guestroom doors stating that hotel workers may not be subjected to threatening behavior.  It also has a “Humane Workload” provision that guarantees room attendants double pay on days when their workload exceeds proscribed limits.  

The lawsuit alleges that Hyatt failed to post the required notices, and seeks injunctive relief requiring Hyatt to comply with the Initiative.  The lawsuit further alleges that Hyatt failed to pay room attendants double when they cleaned more square footage than permitted by the Initiative.  The lawsuit alleges that managers pressured housekeepers to work through their rest breaks to finish cleaning all of their assigned rooms as quickly as possible in violation of California law.  

The lawsuit is part of a larger trend of local governments passing laws that are more protective of workers than states or the federal government.  Los Angeles and several other cities have adopted Living Wage Ordinances, minimum wage ordinances, and sick pay ordinances that are far more protective of workers than state or federal legislation.  Local ordinances to protect hotel workers from grueling workloads are just the latest example of efforts by cities to improve the working conditions of workers in specific industries.  The trend can also be seen in fair scheduling ordinances, with Los Angeles recently passing the first such ordinance for retail workers.  Cities such as Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle have also passed various fair scheduling laws of their own.  

If you believe that you have not been paid proper wages, contact Teukolsky Law today for a free consultation.

The Guardian published an article last Friday about a pair of high-profile lawsuits alleging that Los Serranos Golf Club repeatedly failed to protect four young women from a sexual harasser who worked as the club’s executive chef for more than two decades. The women are represented by Lauren Teukolsky and Zoe Tucker of UNITE HERE Local 11.

The women all began working at Los Serranos in 2021 as line cooks and event servers.  They were all between the ages of 17 and 20 at the time.  They allege that the Executive Chef, who had worked there for decades, made inappropriate romantic and sexual overtures towards them, frequently commented on their physical appearance, and engaged in inappropriate touching.  They allege that the chef would loudly compare their bodies and other physical attributes in crude terms with other male kitchen workers outside of their presence.   They allege that after they complained, the chef was only demoted, not fired, and they were required to continue working alongside him. 

According to the Guardian’s article, sexual harassment is pervasive in the restaurant service and hospitality industries in the US. The article cites a 2021 survey by One Fair Wage that found over 70% of female restaurant employees have been sexually harassed at least once while working in the industry.

The lawsuits are especially significant because they target JC Resorts, a luxury resort operator in Southern California that employs Los Serranos’ workers and has spent millions to oppose legislation that would improve protections against sexual harassment for women in the workplace.  Ms. Teukolsky  previously filed a sex harassment lawsuit against the Terranea, another luxury resort operated by JC Resorts.  Ms. Teukolsky’s client, Sandra Pezqueda, was named a TIME “Person of the Year” after she sued JC Resorts based on sexual harassment she suffered while employed at the Terranea. 

Ms. Teukolsky, has fought to protect employees rights for over 20 years and has represented women in high-profile sexual harassment cases in the past. Most recently, Ms. Teukolsky represented a woman who was sexually harassed while working at Los Angeles’ Chateau Marmont. The lawsuit was covered by the Hollywood Reporter and was one of several lawsuits against the Chateau that prompted a celebrity boycott of the legendary hotel.
​
To read the Guardian’s article in its entirety, click here. If you believe you’ve been sexually harassed at the workplace and want to get in touch with Teukolsky Law, click here. 

Lauren Teukolsky was recently selected to Southern California Super Lawyers Top 100. She also made the 2023 Women Southern California Super Lawyers Top 50. This year’s lists mark Ms. Teukolsky’s eleventh consecutive selection by Super Lawyers, a streak that began in 2013.  Before that, she was selected as a Super Lawyers Rising Star from 2004 to 2010.

Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The objective of the selection process is to create a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.

Ms. Teukolsky has tirelessly advocated on behalf of workers for over two decades. She regularly speaks on panels to discuss employment law and is frequently quoted in news publications for her commentary on the latest developments in the field.
​
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.  

Last month, Bloomberg Law quoted Lauren Teukolsky in an article about the differing approaches taken by California Superior Courts and federal courts towards representative Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims in the months since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana.

In Viking River, the majority held that employers could force arbitration of workers’ individual claims under PAGA, a California law that allows workers to sue companies for employment law violations on behalf of the state. However, the decision was written in a way that essentially left the fate of representative PAGA claims in the hands of California’s lower courts.  

For the most part, federal courts have strictly adhered to the Supreme Court’s ruling, sending individual claims to arbitration, and dismissing representative PAGA claims in over half of the decisions analyzed by Bloomberg Law. According to research conducted by Ms. Teukolsky, California’s state courts have taken a different tack. The article states:

“In sharp contrast, state trial courts dismissed representative claims after moving individual claims into arbitration in just six of 75 decisions collected and analyzed by Lauren Teukolsky of the plaintiff-side firm Teukolsky Law PC. Bloomberg Law independently reviewed those decisions […] The trend of state courts not dismissing non-individual PAGA claims is a huge victory for workers in the state of California,” Teukolsky said.  The fate of PAGA will likely be decided in Adolph v. Uber, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court.

Ms. Teukolsky is frequently cited in news publications for her commentary on developments in employment law, including a pair of Bloomberg Law and Daily Journal articles in 2022 that featured her commentary on Viking River. Ms. Teukolsky also discussed the case on several panels organized by the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the California Employment Lawyers Association, and the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, the preeminent peer-selected organization of labor and employment lawyers in the United States. To learn more about Ms. Teukolsky’s experience, click here.
​
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.

In December, Lauren Teukolsky was quoted in a Daily Journal article discussing the future of California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) in 2023.

PAGA is a California labor law that allows workers to sue their employers for labor violations on behalf of the state. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana was believed by some to be a victory for employers, preventing employees from asserting PAGA claims affecting multiple employees. However, according to the article, research conducted by Ms. Teukolsky in the aftermath of Viking shows employees have fared well in California state courts:

“Superior court judges have rejected defense motions to dismiss PAGA claims for a plaintiff’s co-workers 92% of the time even as they have referred individual claims to arbitration, according to records compiled by Lauren K. Teukolsky of the plaintiff’s firm Teukolsky Law APC. Just six PAGA cases have been dismissed in state court in what she referred to as the ‘full Alito.’”

In federal courts, the picture painted by Ms. Teukolsky’s research is not as encouraging for workers. The article states:

“Employers have had a lot more success in federal court, where judges have dismissed PAGA claims six of 11 times, she added. But the vast majority of cases ­– 75, Teukolsky said ­– have been considered in state court.”

Ms. Teukolsky previously discussed the implications of Viking River on panels organized by the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the California Employment Lawyers Association, and the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, the preeminent peer-selected organization of labor and employment lawyers in the United States.  She is also frequently cited in news publications for her commentary on developments in employment law, including a June 2022 Bloomberg Law article that featured her commentary on Viking River. To learn more about Ms. Teukolsky’s experience, click here.
​
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.