Best Wrongful Termination Lawyers in Bakersfield, California

Have you found yourself recently terminated from your job? Are you now on the lookout for the most skilled wrongful termination attorney in Bakersfield? Your search ends right here. Look no further for the premier Bakersfield wrongful termination attorney. Our firm’s Bakersfield wrongful termination lawyers bring over two decades of expertise, successfully representing both employees and employers in employment litigation and trials.

We understand the stress and uncertainty that comes with unlawful termination, and we are here to provide the guidance and support you need during this challenging time. Our team of Bakersfield employment lawyers has a proven track record of advocating for our clients’ rights and achieving favorable outcomes.

Whether you believe you were wrongfully terminated due to discrimination, retaliation, or violation of your rights under state or federal laws such as the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), our Bakersfield wrongful termination law firm is ready to fight for you. We believe that everyone deserves fair treatment in the workplace and will work tirelessly to ensure that justice is served.

Wrongful Termination Attorneys in Bakersfield Ready to Fight for Your Rights

We offer a complimentary case evaluation to discuss the details of your situation and determine the best course of action. Our goal is to provide you with peace of mind and the legal representation you deserve. Don’t wait any longer to seek justice for your wrongful termination. Contact us today to schedule your consultation and take the first step towards securing your rights.

Our Bakersfield Wrongful Firing Lawyers Can Help With your Wrongful Discharge Case

The termination of one’s employment can be deemed unlawful in numerous ways. A claim for wrongful job termination in violation of public policy can stem from a variety of public policies, resulting in various ways a termination can be considered “wrongful” under the law.

There exists a multitude of scenarios where termination may be unlawful, including but not limited to discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race, gender, age, or disability, retaliation for whistleblowing or reporting illegal activity, refusal to participate in illegal activities, taking legally protected leave, or exercising rights granted by employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements.

Given this broad scope, a termination can be wrongful not just because of the act of termination itself, but also due to the reasons behind it. If an employer fires an employee for reasons that violate public policy, such as those outlined above, it constitutes unjust firing. These violations undermine fundamental principles of fairness and justice in the workplace, and the law provides avenues for employees to seek recourse when such actions occur.

Understanding the complexities of wrongful termination law requires expertise and experience. If you believe you have been wrongfully terminated, it is crucial to seek legal advice to explore your options and protect your rights.

Wrongful Dismissal Resulting from Workplace Safety Concerns

When an employer fires an employee for protesting unsafe working conditions, it violates a fundamental public policy favoring workplace safety. As a result, the discharged worker may file a lawsuit for wrongful discharge. This is because terminating an employee for raising concerns about unsafe working conditions not only undermines the employee’s rights but also goes against the core principles of ensuring a safe and healthy work environment for all employees.

Unjust Firing Resulting from Employee’s Refusal to Sign Noncompete

Terminating an employee for refusing to sign a noncompetition agreement has been established to violate a fundamental public policy expressed in Bus. & Prof.C. § 16600. This statute states: “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”

This law underscores the importance of preserving individuals’ rights to pursue their chosen professions, trades, or businesses freely. By firing an employee for refusing to sign a noncompetition agreement, an employer is essentially trying to restrict the employee’s ability to work in their field or industry after leaving the company. Such actions not only hinder the individual’s career prospects but also contravene the principle that individuals should be able to engage in lawful professions or businesses without unnecessary restraints.

This violation of public policy not only affects the terminated employee but also has broader implications for the labor market and competition. It undermines fair competition and innovation by stifling the mobility of skilled workers and limiting their opportunities to contribute their expertise to various companies and industries.

Therefore, when an employer terminates an employee for refusing to sign a noncompetition agreement, it not only breaches the individual’s rights but also goes against the core principles of fostering fair competition and ensuring individuals’ freedom to pursue their chosen professions or businesses.

Unlawful Termination Due to Breach of Noncompete with Former Employer

A Tameny action can be pursued against an employer who, for the sake of maintaining relationships with colleagues in the same industry, terminates an employee who had signed a noncompetition agreement with her former employer. This termination violates the public policy favoring open competition and employee mobility, as expressed in Bus. & Prof.C. § 16600.

The essence of this situation lies in the employer’s actions prioritizing their relationships with competitors over the employee’s right to pursue their chosen profession freely. By firing the employee to accommodate these industry relationships, the employer effectively restricts the individual’s ability to engage in fair competition and hampers their professional mobility, which directly contradicts the spirit of § 16600.

This law emphasizes the importance of preserving open competition and facilitating employee mobility within the workforce. It prohibits contracts that restrain individuals from pursuing lawful professions, trades, or businesses, except in specific circumstances outlined in the statute.

In this scenario, the employer’s decision to terminate the employee goes against this fundamental public policy. It not only undermines the employee’s rights but also harms the competitive landscape by limiting the individual’s ability to contribute their skills and expertise to different companies within the industry.

Thus, pursuing a Tameny action against the employer becomes necessary to uphold the principles of open competition and employee mobility enshrined in § 16600. It seeks to hold the employer accountable for violating these fundamental rights and aims to ensure fair treatment of employees in the context of noncompetition agreements.

Call Our Bakersfield Wrongful Dismissal Lawyers to See if You Have a Case

Our Bakerfield wrongful job termination attorneys have recovered millions of dollars for their clients.  Give us a call today at (661) 874-4118 to see what they can do for you.

Areas Served:

The litigation and trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. provide services throughout Southern California including but not limited to Adelanto, Agoura Hills, Alhambra, Aliso Viejo, Altadena, Anaheim, Apple Valley, Arcadia, Arleta, Atwater Village, Azuza, Bakersfield, Baldwin Park, Banning, Beaumont, Bell, Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Blythe, Boyle Heights, Brea, Brentwood, Buena Park, Burbank, Calabasas, Calimesa, Camarillo, Canoga Park, Canyon Lake, Carson, Cathedral City, Cerritos, Chatsworth, Chino Hills, Chino, Claremont, Coachella, Colton, Compton, Costa Mesa, Corona, Covina, Culver City, Cypress, Dana Point, Desert Hot Springs, Diamond Bar, Downey, Duarte, Eagle Rock, East Hollywood, East Los Angeles, Eastvale, Echo Park, El Monte, El Segundo, El Sereno, Encino, Fontana, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Gardena, Garden Grove, Glassell Park, Glendale, Glendora, Granada Hills, Hacienda Heights, Hawthorne, Hemet, Hesperia, Highland Park, Highland, Hollywood, Hollywood Hills, Huntington Beach, Huntington Park, Indian Wells, Indio, Inglewood, Irvine, Jurupa Valley, La Canada Flintridge, La-Crescenta Montrose, La Habra, La Mirada, La Palma, La Puente, La Quinta, La Verne, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lakewood, Lake Balboa, Lake Elsinore, Lake Forest, Lancaster, Lawndale, Lincoln Heights, Loma Linda, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Los Angeles, Los Feliz, Lynwood, Manhattan Beach, Mar Vista, Maywood, Menifee, Mission Hills, Mission Viejo, Monrovia, Montclair, Montebello, Monterey Park, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Newbury Park, Newhall, Newport Beach, Norco, North Hills, North Hollywood, Northridge, Norwalk, Ontario, Orange, Oxnard, Pacific Palisades, Pacoima, Palos Verdes, Palmdale, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Panorama City, Paramount, Pasadena, Perris, Pico Rivera, Placentia, Pomona, Porter Ranch, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Mirage, Rancho Santa Margarita, Redondo Beach, Reseda, Rialto, Riverside, Rosemead, Rowland Heights, San Bernardino, San Clemente, San Dimas, San Gabriel, San Fernando, San Jacinto, San Juan Capistrano, San Pedro, Santa Ana, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, Sawtelle, Seal Beach, Shadow Hills, Sherman Oaks, Silver Lake, Simi Valley, South El Monte, South Gate, South Pasadena, South Whittier, Stanton, Studio City, Sun Valley, Sunland, Sylmar, Tarzana, Temecula, Temple City, Thousand Oaks, Toluca Lake, Torrance, Tujunga, Tustin, Twentynine Palms, Upland, Valencia, Valley Glen, Valley Village, Van Nuys, Ventura, Victorville, Walnut, West Covina, West Hills, West Hollywood, West Puente alley, Westchester, Westminster, Westwood, Whittier, Wildomar, Winnetka, Woodland Hills, Yorba Linda

Featured Wrongful Termination Case:

In Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc., the California Court of Appeal addressed a case involving wrongful termination and violation of public policy. The plaintiff, Silguero, worked as a sales representative for Creteguard, Inc. During her employment, she was asked to sign a noncompetition agreement which restricted her ability to work for competitors if she left the company. Silguero signed the agreement under protest. Later, Silguero was terminated from her position. She sued Creteguard, alleging wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Silguero argued that her termination was wrongful because it was based on her refusal to sign the noncompetition agreement, which violated California Business and Professions Code section 16600. The court agreed with Silguero, holding that her termination was indeed wrongful. The court found that firing an employee for refusing to sign a noncompetition agreement violated the public policy favoring open competition and employee mobility as expressed in section 16600. The court reasoned that such agreements restrict an employee’s ability to pursue lawful professions, trades, or businesses, and therefore are void except in limited circumstances. The court further held that a Tameny action, a cause of action recognized in California for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, could be brought against an employer in such cases. This decision reinforced the principle that employers cannot terminate employees for refusing to sign noncompetition agreements that contravene California public policy.

In summary, Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc. established that terminating an employee for refusing to sign a noncompetition agreement violates public policy in California. This case affirmed the importance of preserving open competition and employee mobility, as expressed in California Business and Professions Code section 16600, and provided employees with legal recourse through a Tameny action for wrongful termination in violation of this public policy.