President Donald Trump’s recent attacks on the National Relations Labor Board (NLRB) have disrupted the Board’s operations. The quasi-judicial body traditionally consists of five board members appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. But recently, partisan congressional gridlock in the Senate stalled replacements for two Board member vacancies. Since Trump assumed office on January 10, 2025, his directives and firings have forced the Board to further undergo a chaotic restructuring of its remaining three board members. 

On his first day in office, Trump appointed current member Marvin E. Kaplan to be the Board chairman, and later fired Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox. The NLRB needs at least three Board members to establish a quorum, but without Ms. Wilcox, the Board only has two members.

A growing concern is that Trump’s true intent is to paralyze the functioning of the NLRB. Without a quorum, the NLRB is unable to issue new decisions or respond to appeals, which benefits employers. Companies who receive adverse rulings from Administrative Law  Judge can simply appeal to the quorum-less NLRB. The Board is without power to review the charge, meaning it would remain in limbo indefinitely. Meanwhile, employers may simply continue business as usual.

Wilcox filed a lawsuit alleging her firing was unlawful. A federal judge agreed, ordering her reinstatement. But a federal appeals court stayed the order reinstating her, signaling it intends to rule in Trump’s favor.
​
It’s likely that the Supreme Court will weigh in on this issue. The case will test the Supreme Court’s willingness to reign in Trump’s power. The Supreme Court historically upheld job removal protections for agency officials under the 90-year-old precedent Humphrey’s Executor. The Court has recently started chipping away at the ruling but has yet to outright overrule the precedent. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump it could mean dramatic changes to almost all administrative agencies. 

​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.

Lauren Teukolsky was recently selected to the 2025 Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers list and the 2025 Top 50 Women Southern California Super Lawyers list. The selections were made by Super Lawyers, a rating service that recognizes “outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.”

This year’s lists mark Ms. Teukolsky’s thirteenth 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.

The Super Lawyers selection process involves a multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area. The objective of the selection process is to create a comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The top 5% of attorneys are selected to Super Lawyers lists each year.
​
Lauren Teukolsky has worked to protect employees’ rights for over two decades and speaks regularly at conferences on employment law. On March 19, 2025, Ms. Teukolsky is set to speak at the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s (LACBA) Labor & Employment Symposium. The LACBA symposium will take place at the Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. To register for the LACBA Symposium, click here.

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.  ​

California’s new state law banning “captive audience” meetings took effect on January 1, 2025. Senate Bill 399 (S.B. 399) prevents California employers from forcing employees to attend meetings or listen to communications about the employer’s religious, political, or union views. The bill was sponsored by the Teamsters Union and authored by State Senator Aisha Wahab (Dem. - Sen. Dist. 10). Supporters of the law argue that it promotes fairness and equity. They reason that employers hold a disproportionate amount of power over their employees and should not be able to force their workers to attend political meetings with no relevance to their jobs. Employees effectively become a “captive audience,” fearful of retaliation and subject to coercion.

Opponents of the law, primarily business and commerce groups, have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 399. They argue that it infringes on an employer’s First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. They claim that the ban discriminates against the employer’s viewpoint and chills their speech on political subjects. In response, the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) released a legal memorandum defending the constitutionality of the ban. The AFL-CIO argues that the law constitutionally restricts an employer’s conduct – not speech – especially when aimed at a nonconsenting audience.

The legal future of S.B. 399 remains unclear. California’s state law mirrors similar laws enacted by states across the nation that have also faced legal challenges with mixed results. Further complicating matters, the Trump administration recently fired the chair of the NLRB rendering the Board without a quorum or the ability to issue new decisions. Trump is likely appoint a full slate of Republican Board members friendly to management and willing to overturn employee-friendly NLRB precedent prohibiting captive audience meetings. Simultaneously, on February 16, 2025, Trump’s appointee for the NLRB General Counsel, William B. Cowen, released a memorandum (GC 25-05) outlining the labor policy initiatives for Trump’s second term. Among the rollback of Biden-era practices, Cowen has rescinded guidance on the NLRB’s prior position supporting the ban on captive audience meetings. 
​
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 is set to speak at the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s 45th annual Labor & Employment Law Section Symposium. The LACBA symposium will take place on Wednesday, March 19 at the Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.  Ms. Teukolsky will speak on a panel alongside Tritia Murata, Partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Cynthia Sandoval, mediator at Sandoval Mediation, and Todd Ratshin, Deputy Secretary of Enforcement at the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA).
​
The panel will discuss the changes made to Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) law in the past year, including the recent appellate decisions about “headless” PAGA cases, the introduction of the early evaluation conference process, the limitations on violations that plaintiffs can assert, and the greater number of violations that employers can cure. The panel will reflect on how these changes impact their work and approach to PAGA litigation. Speakers will also touch on the state of wage-and-hour laws ranging from healthcare workers’ minimum wage to protections for child social media influencers.

Ms. Teukolsky has worked to protect employees’ rights for over two decades and speaks regularly at conferences on employment law. Earlier this month, Ms. Teukolsky spoke at the  Berkeley Law School Conference on Gender Discrimination and Harassment Law about a new federal law that excludes sexual harassment claims from arbitration. She recently spoke about PAGA at the UCLA Law Women LEAD conference, and moderated a session at CELA’s (California Employment Lawyer Association) 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.

To register for the LACBA Symposium on March 19, click here.  If you believe you’ve been treated unlawfully in the workplace and want to get in touch with our office, click here.

​On January 24, 2025, Lauren Teukolsky spoke at the Sixth Annual CLE Conference on Gender Discrimination and Harassment Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Berkeley’s Center on Comparative Equality and Anti-Discrimination Law hosted the conference, which explored new developments in gender discrimination and harassment law in California and other jurisdictions. Ms. Teukolsky spoke 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. Ms. Teukolsky contributed an article for the conference discussing a federal law that became effective in March 2022 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. 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’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 Daily Journal article and a Bloomberg Law article about a recent 2nd District Court of Appeal opinion halting the growing trend of “headless” PAGA cases. The Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA) permits employees to act as deputies of the state and bring a suit on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees to enforce the Labor Code. A “headless” PAGA case is one in which the plaintiff disclaims all individual claims and seek PAGA penalties solely on behalf of other aggrieved employees. Plaintiffs typically engage in this practice to avoid mandatory arbitration of individual claims and the resulting delay in their PAGA case.

This practice grew in popularity after the California Court of Appeals issued Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting in April 2024, holding that workers who disclaim their individual claims can still bring a group PAGA action on behalf of other aggrieved employees. But in December 2024, a different division of the California Court of Appeals ruled in Leeper v. Shipt that a PAGA action on behalf of others necessarily includes an individual PAGA claim for the plaintiff, and the individual claim can be compelled to arbitration while the PAGA claim remains stayed in court.

The Daily Journal quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying if Leeper remains good law, “it is the end of the headless PAGA case.” She adds that, “there’s going to be a huge wave of defendants fling motions for reconsideration of lower court decisions that have allowed such lawsuits to proceed.” Bloomberg Law noted Ms. Teukolsky’s analysis of twenty post-Balderas court orders found that a majority denied motions to compel arbitration based on Balderas. She noted that “Given the sheer number of cases involving the headless PAGA issue, it seems likely that other courts of appeal will weigh in, and eventually the California Supreme Court will take one of these cases to clarify the law.”
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 Daily Journal article, click here.  To read the Bloomberg Law 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.

In 2024, California’s appeals courts handed three victories to workers relying on the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) to keep their sexual harassment and assault cases out of arbitration. President Biden signed the law on March 3, 2022.  It permits workers alleging a sexual assault or harassment claim to keep their case in court, voiding any mandatory arbitration agreements. Employers have increasingly required employees to sign arbitration agreements at the outset of employment, forcing those workers into a discriminatory one-sided process.

Arbitration is plagued with unresolved problems. Arbitrators are primarily white and male, far less diverse than juries in major metropolitan areas. The two largest employment arbitration organizations in the U.S. have reported data showing that 88% of their arbitrators are white and 77% are male. Further, arbitration is a largely secretive process with unclear rules and little oversight. This effectively silences victims of sexual assault and harassment. Forced arbitration agreements are widespread and currently cover 56% of all non-union private sector employees. A 2018 study done by the Economic Policy Institute found that mandatory arbitration is common in low-wage workplaces and in industries disproportionately comprised of women and African Americans.  

The EFAA provides much-needed relief because it makes arbitration agreements in sexual harassment cases unenforceable, permitting workers to keep their case in court. Predictability, since EFAA’s passage, employers have fought vigorously to limit the law’s applicability and scope. Fortunately, they have had limited success in California.

In two recent decisions, Doe v. Second Street Corp., 105 Cal. App. 5th 552 (2024), and Liu v. Miniso, 105 Cal. App. 5th 791 (2024), the California Court of Appeal broadly interpreted EFAA’s arbitration ban, holding that the EFAA exempts a plaintiff’s entire case from arbitration so long as the employee asserts at least one claim of sexual harassment or assault.  In both cases, the court rejected employers’ argument that only sexual harassment or assault claims should stay in court, but unrelated claims should be arbitrated. However, the EFAA plainly states that arbitration agreements are unenforceable with respect to a plaintiff’s “case,” not just a “claim.” If Congress intended for the law to exempt only specific claims, it would have crafted the law to state as much. 
On November 15, 2024, the employer in the Liu case filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, but it is unclear whether the state’s highest court will take up the appeal or wait for more appellate courts to weigh in. 

In Kader v. S. California Med. Ctr., Inc., 99 Cal. App. 5th 214 (2024), the California Court of Appeal similarly handed a win to an employee who relied on EFAA to keep his case out of arbitration. The plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement while he was experiencing harassment, but before he filed a lawsuit. The employer argued that the EFAA applies only to arbitration agreements signed before the underlying sexual harassment occurs, also known as “predispute” arbitration agreements.  The court rejected the employer’s argument, holding instead that a “dispute” arises for purposes of EFAA only when the parties take adversarial positions on an asserted right or claim.  In this case, the “dispute” arose only when the plaintiff  filed a harassment charge with the State’s civil rights agency, rendering the arbitration agreement he signed before then unenforceable.
​
These three decisions represent victories for workers who have suffered from sexual assault and harassment who want to avail themselves of California’s robust public court system.  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.

Lauren Teukolsky’s “Wage and Hour Case Notes” were published in the November 2024 edition of the CLA California Labor and Employment Law Review. Her column describes three recent decisions from California’s Supreme Court and appellate courts that affect wage-and-hour law.

Ms. Teukolsky’s column discusses whether Proposition 22’s classification of Uber and Lyft drivers as independent contractors is constitutional, and whether courts can approve PAGA settlements even when there are multiple overlapping PAGA cases. Her column also explores whether public entities are subject to California’s Labor Code provisions for rest and meal breaks.

California Lawyers Association (CLA) 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 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 recently quoted in a Bloomberg article about the increasing use by California employees of “headless” PAGA cases to avoid being forced to arbitrate their wage-and-hour claims. The Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA) permits employees to act as deputies of the state and bring a suit on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees to enforce the Labor Code.  In 2022, the United State Supreme Court ruled that employers may not require employees to waive PAGA claims via a mandatory arbitration agreement.  But the Court also ruled that employers can require employees to split their “individual PAGA claim” from the claim on behalf of others, and to arbitrate the individual claim.

​A headless PAGA case is one in which the plaintiff disclaims all individual claims, including the individual PAGA claim, and files the lawsuit to seek PAGA penalties solely on behalf of other aggrieved employees.  This strategy was galvanized after the California Court of Appeals issued Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting in April 2024, holding that workers who disclaim their individual claims can still bring a group PAGA action on behalf of other aggrieved employees.  While Balderas was not about arbitration, several plaintiffs’ lawyers have seized on the holding of the case to file headless PAGA cases in an effort to stay out of arbitration. 

​As stated in the Bloomberg article, Ms. Teukolsky’s analysis of 20 post-Balderas orders reveals that the majority of trial courts are following Balderas and permitting PAGA plaintiffs who disclaim individual claims to avoid arbitration.  A small but significant minority are distinguishing Balderas and still requiring PAGA plaintiffs to arbitrate their “aggrieved employee” status.  The Bloomberg article quoted Ms. Teukolsky saying, “Given this split, I anticipate we will see more decisions from the Court of Appeals in the next year or two about whether a PAGA plaintiff can stay out of arbitration by disclaiming all individual claims.”

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.