Best Los Angeles Sexual Harassment Attorney

Sexual harassment victims looking for help might want to consider the following when they look for sexual harassment attorneys in Los Angeles:

Why Is It Difficult to Find the Right Los Angeles Sexual Harassment Attorney?

Los Angeles County is one of the biggest in the country. According to the United States Census Bureau Los Angeles County is home to more than ten million people. It has been reported that Los Angeles County has more lawyers by far than any other county in California. In fact, it has three times the number of the next biggest county for lawyers, San Francisco. Suffice it to say that victims of sexual harassment have many options when looking for attorneys in Los Angeles.

sexual harassment in the workplace lawyerWhat Should I Look for in a Los Angeles Sexual Harassment Attorney?

When choosing the right sexual harassment attorney in Los Angeles, among the most important qualities to look for are knowledge and experience. Some areas of law are rather simple and not very complicated. Other areas of law are more complex and more difficult to navigate. The law of sexual harassment specifically, and employment law, in general, is rather nuanced. Consequently, it is important for victims to be represented and/or guided by an attorney who knows and understands the law and has plenty of experience handling these kinds of cases. Therefore, so many victims of sexual harassment in the workplace have turned to the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. when seeking a sexual harassment attorney in Los Angeles, CA. Each sexual harassment lawyer of the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. has handled countless sexual harassment lawsuits on behalf of victims of workplace sexual harassment.

Another important quality to look for is the ability to deliver results. Some sexual harassment attorneys in Los Angeles have a track record of positive outcomes and good results. Others do not. Each of the two sexual harassment lawyers from Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. has achieved excellent results for their clients.

Last but not least, personality matters. The successful handling of a sexual harassment case requires more than just talent in the courtroom. Unlike most other kinds of cases, sexual harassment cases are very delicate. The best sexual harassment attorneys in Los Angeles know that they have to do more than just successfully handle court proceedings. They need to also be, in a sense, their client’s confidant, advisor, therapist, and healer. Good bedside manner is especially important in these kinds of cases. We are proud of the top-notch service we provide, but we do not want you to take our word for it – See what our clients have to say! The relationships we build with our clients often outlast the life of the case.

Finding The Right Sexual Harassment Attorney in Los Angeles

Victims of workplace harassment can try to find a labor lawyer by running online searches for “Sexual harassment attorney in Los Angeles, CA” or “Los Angeles sexual harassment lawyer” or “best sexual harassment lawyer in LA” but this may not be the best way to go. You may end up speaking with an assistant, and never hearing from a real sexual harassment attorney. What is more, you never know whose website you might end up on. With the constant onslaught of lawyer advertising, it can be difficult for victims of sexual harassment to determine if the attorney they have found is actually an excellent lawyer, or simply one with a large advertising budget.

One thing a potential client should consider doing is asking the sexual harassment attorney to provide references. A good sexual harassment attorney in Los Angeles should be willing to provide the names and phone numbers of opposing attorneys they have gone up against, who can vouch for the quality of their work. If a former client is comfortable with the attorney doing so, he or she should also be willing to provide the name and phone number of a past client who can talk about their experiences with the lawyer.

If you wish to speak directly with an experienced sexual harassment lawyer in Los Angeles personally, contact the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. and speak to one of our attorneys. Each of our attorneys has more than a decade of experience in sexual harassment law and is ready to speak with you directly about your specific situation.

Featured Sexual Harassment Case:

Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc., 97 Cal. App. 5th 865, 315 Cal. Rptr. 3d 842 (2023), review filed (Jan. 16, 2024)

An employee filed a hostile work environment sexual harassment against her employer wherein she alleged that she was sexually harassed by her superior. The employer moved for summary judgment.  The Superior Court granted the motion. The employee appealed. The Court of Appeal held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether hostile work environment existed, precluding summary judgment.  Notably, the unpublished portion of the appellate opinion provides as follows:  It is an unlawful employment practice for “an employer … to harass an employee.” (§ 12940, subd. (j)(1).) “The existence of a strong public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace is indisputable. The public policy on this point is well defined and clearly expressed in state and federal law.” (City of Richmond v. Service Employees Internat. Union, Local 1021 (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 663, 671, 118 Cal.Rptr.3d 315.) Under California law, an employer is strictly liable for harassing conduct of its agents and supervisors. (§ 12940, subd. (j)(1).) *878 101112“Sexual harassment consists of any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. [Citation.] It usually arises in two contexts. ‘Quid pro quo’ harassment conditions an employee’s continued enjoyment of job benefits on submission to the harassment. ‘Hostile work environment’ harassment has the purpose or effect of either interfering with the work performance of an employee or creating an intimidating workplace.” (Rieger v. Arnold (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 451, 459, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 295.) FEHA is to be construed liberally to accomplish its purposes. (§ 12993.) Sexual harassment law in California requires an employee to prove “severe or pervasive” harassment. (§ 12923.) Prior to 2019, this requirement was quite a high bar for plaintiffs to clear, even in the context of a motion for summary judgment. But section 12923, which went into effect on January 1, 2019, clarified existing law in numerous respects. One such clarification, codified in subdivision (b), stated that “[a] single incident of harassing conduct is sufficient to create a triable issue regarding the existence of a hostile work environment if the harassing conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff’s work performance or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.” ( § 12923, subd. (b).) The Legislature therefore explicitly rejected Brooks v. City of San Mateo (2000) 229 F.3d 917, 926 [holding that “If a single incident can ever suffice to support a hostile work environment claim, the incident must be extremely severe”].) Section 12923, subdivision (a), also clarified that a hostile work environment exists “when the harassing conduct sufficiently offends, humiliates, distresses, or intrudes upon its victim, so as to disrupt the victim’s emotional tranquility in the workplace, affect the victim’s ability to perform the job as usual, or otherwise interfere with and undermine the victim’s personal sense of well-being.” The plaintiff is not required to show a decline in productivity, only “that a reasonable person subjected to the discriminatory conduct would find, as the plaintiff did, that the harassment so altered working conditions as to ‘make it more difficult to do the job.’ ” (See Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993) 510 U.S. 17, 25, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (conc. opn. of Ginsburg, J.).) Further, as pertinent here, section 12923, subdivision (e), states: “Harassment cases are rarely appropriate for disposition on summary judgment.” (See **854 Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 286, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 296.) In response to section 12923, the Judicial Council of California revised its jury instructions on sexual harassment. The new instruction on the conduct that is considered sufficient to establish a harassment claim states: “ ‘Severe *879 or pervasive’ means conduct that alters the conditions of employment and creates a work environment that is hostile, intimidating, offensive, oppressive, or abusive. [¶] In determining whether the conduct was severe or pervasive, you should consider all the circumstances, including any or all of the following: [¶] (a) The nature of the conduct; [¶] (b) How often, and over what period of time, the conduct occurred; [¶] (c) The circumstances under which the conduct occurred; [¶] (d) Whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating. [¶] [Name of plaintiff] does not have to prove that [his/her/nonbinary pronoun] productivity has declined. It is sufficient to prove that a reasonable person who was subjected to the harassing conduct would find that the conduct so altered working conditions as to make it more difficult to do the job. [¶] [A single incident can be sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute harassment.]” (CACI No. 2524.)

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 AdelantoAgoura HillsAlhambraAliso ViejoAltadenaAnaheimApple ValleyArcadiaArletaAtwater VillageAzuzaBakersfieldBaldwin ParkBanningBeaumontBellBell GardensBellflowerBeverly HillsBlytheBoyle HeightsBreaBrentwoodBuena ParkBurbankCalabasasCalimesaCamarilloCanoga ParkCanyon LakeCarsonCathedral CityCerritosChatsworthChino HillsChinoClaremontCoachellaColtonComptonCosta MesaCoronaCovinaCulver CityCypressDana PointDesert Hot SpringsDiamond BarDowneyDuarteEagle RockEast HollywoodEast Los AngelesEastvaleEcho ParkEl MonteEl SegundoEl SerenoEncinoFontanaFountain ValleyFullertonGardenaGarden GroveGlassell ParkGlendaleGlendoraGranada HillsHacienda HeightsHawthorneHemetHesperiaHighland ParkHighlandHollywoodHollywood HillsHuntington BeachHuntington ParkIndian WellsIndioInglewoodIrvineJurupa ValleyLa Canada FlintridgeLa-Crescenta MontroseLa HabraLa MiradaLa PalmaLa PuenteLa QuintaLa VerneLaguna BeachLaguna HillsLaguna NiguelLaguna WoodsLakewoodLake BalboaLake ElsinoreLake ForestLancasterLawndaleLincoln HeightsLoma LindaLong BeachLos AlamitosLos AngelesLos FelizLynwoodManhattan BeachMar VistaMaywoodMenifeeMission HillsMission ViejoMonroviaMontclairMontebelloMonterey ParkMoorparkMoreno ValleyMurrietaNewbury ParkNewhallNewport BeachNorcoNorth HillsNorth HollywoodNorthridgeNorwalkOntarioOrangeOxnardPacific PalisadesPacoimaPalos VerdesPalmdalePalm DesertPalm SpringsPanorama CityParamountPasadenaPerrisPico RiveraPlacentiaPomonaPorter RanchRancho CucamongaRancho MirageRancho Santa MargaritaRedondo BeachResedaRialtoRiversideRosemeadRowland HeightsSan BernardinoSan ClementeSan DimasSan GabrielSan FernandoSan JacintoSan Juan CapistranoSan PedroSanta AnaSanta ClaritaSanta MonicaSawtelleSeal BeachShadow HillsSherman OaksSilver LakeSimi ValleySouth El MonteSouth GateSouth PasadenaSouth WhittierStantonStudio CitySun ValleySunlandSylmarTarzanaTemeculaTemple CityThousand OaksToluca LakeTorranceTujungaTustinTwentynine PalmsUplandValenciaValley GlenValley VillageVan NuysVenturaVictorvilleWalnutWest CovinaWest HillsWest HollywoodWest Puente alleyWestchesterWestminsterWestwoodWhittierWildomarWinnetkaWoodland HillsYorba Linda


I agree to receive SMS messages from Akopyan Law FirmI agree to receive email(s) from Akopyan Law Firm