Employment Lawyers in Orange, California
The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to provide first rate legal services and representation and protect the rights and interests of both employees and employers in the City of Orange.
City of Orange
The City of Orange is located in Orange County, in the State of California, approximately three miles north of Santa Ana. The City of Orange was incorporated on April 6, 1888, but dates back to 1869 when Alfred Chapman and Andrew Glassell, both lawyers, accepted 1,385 acres of land from the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana as legal fees. Soon thereafter, the men laid out a one square mile town with ten-acre farm lots surrounding a forty-acre central town site. The center of the town site became known as the Plaza, which has become the symbol of the community. Today, the Plaza and the majority of the original one square mile town site, contain many homes and buildings dating to the early days of the City. The City of Orange has a population of 138,640. It covers the following postal zip codes: 92856, 92857, 92858, 92859, 92860, 92861, 92862, 92863, 92864, 92865, 92866, 92867, 92868, 92869.
Aggressive Employment Lawyers with Offices Near Orange
The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. has offices in Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Oxnard, Temecula, Rancho Cucamonga, Costa Mesa, Culver City, and San Diego.
Employment Law, City of Orange
The working relationship between companies and workers in the City of Orange is governed by a many different rules and regulations. Some of the are found in local laws, while others come from state law, and/or federal law. Some of the state laws that apply to the employment relationship in the City of Orange include, but are not limited to the California Labor Code, the California Government Code, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), California Constitution, the California Family Rights Act, and the California Business & Professions Code. Some of the United States laws governing the workplace in the City of Orange, California include but are not limited to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Many workers and employees in the City of Orange, California suffer violations of their wage and hour and other rights, without even realizing that they are being shortchanged. Along the same lines many of the companies that employ folks in Orange, California may be breaking the law without even realizing it. If you live or work in Orange, California and feel that you may have been harassed, discriminated against, or retaliated against don’t just sit there and wonder “are there any Orange, California labor law attorneys near me I can call” or “are there any employment lawyers in the City of Orange me who can help?” The fastest way to determine if your rights have been violated is to call one of our Orange, California labor lawyers for a consultation. At the Akopyan Law Firm, our attorneys in Orange, California will listen with compassion and fight with passion to defend the rights of employees in Orange. Every Orange employee deserves to be left alone to do his or her work in an environment that is free of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. If you are looking for employment attorneys in Orange, California our experienced employment law attorneys are a phone call away.
Labor Lawyers Ready to Help Folks in Orange, California
If you are in Orange, California, finding the best employment attorney for your case may not be as easy as it may seem. Without a doubt residents of the City of Orange have many choices available to them, but a Google search for “Orange employment lawyer” may not be the quickest way to find the best employment lawyer in Orange. Selecting the right attorney with the proper skill and experience can be difficult. Finding an attorney well versed in this area of the law, and experienced in handling such disputes can be hard. One can try to find a labor lawyer by running online searches for “Orange employment lawyer” or “labor lawyer in Orange” but fancy websites and huge advertising budgets do not necessarily mean that lawyers they represent are a good fit. If you wish to speak directly with an employment lawyer in Orange, California, contact the Akopyan Law Firm and speak to one of our employment lawyers at our Orange law office. Each of our lawyers has well over a decade of experience in employment law and is ready to speak with you directly about your specific situation.
Employment Lawyer Orange
Employers and employees in the City of Orange who wish to find the best employment attorney in Orange for their case should find a local attorney who specializes in employment law. Our skilled Orange labor law attorneys devote the vast and overwhelming majority of their time to protecting employees from injustice. Most of our caseload consists of employment cases representing employees against their current or former employers. We also represent local small businesses in the City of Orange, California. Our Orange employment lawyers are ready to help with cases involving discrimination, including, but not limited to, age, sex, and race discrimination, emotional distress, retaliation, wrongful termination, and many other forms of illegal conduct in the workplace. Our employment lawyers have a track record of success.
Orange Labor Law
Finding the right labor lawyer in Orange can be a challenging task. Simply running online searches for phrases like “labor attorneys near me,” “employee attorney near me,” or “employee lawyer near me” may not guarantee contact with the right lawyer for your specific case. The legal landscape offers a multitude of firms, each with varying approaches. Not every employee attorney in Orange County will be the perfect match for every case. Some employment lawyers may prefer quick and easy low-value settlements, while others are prepared for a substantial, drawn-out fight that ultimately leads to a full-value resolution.
At the Akopyan Law Firm in Orange, California, our labor lawyers are dedicated to achieving the best possible outcome for each client, regardless of the size of the battle it might entail. Our commitment to delivering top-quality work on every case leads us to limit our practice to a specific number of cases, ensuring that every employee who becomes our client is treated like family. We take pride in the first-class personal service we provide, but we don’t expect you to take our word for it—see what our clients have to say! The relationships we build with our clients often extend beyond the life of the case. Our employment lawyers in Orange, California, passionately advocate for our clients, as evidenced by the outstanding results they have consistently achieved. If you’re in search of employment lawyers in Orange, California, give us a call today for a complimentary case evaluation. Your legal needs are our priority, and we’re here to provide you with the best possible representation.
We Are Ready To Enforce The Rights of Orange Residents In Cases Involving:
Featured Articles:
Interactive Process Violations in California: Recognizing Possible Employer Violations After Bodily Injuries
📌 Key Takeaways Know the signs of an illegal response when your employer learns about your disabilities due to bodily injuries. Silence Is a Signal: Your employer’s failure to engage in a timely conversation after you disclose a disability can be a direct violation of their legal duty. Good Faith Isn’t Optional: A brief, dismissive meeting or a quick “no” without exploring alternatives fails the legal requirement for a genuine, good-faith dialogue. Policies Don’t Invalidate People: A company's blanket statement like “we don’t offer light duty” is not a valid substitute for an individualized assessment of your specific needs. A Request for an Accommodation Is Protected Activity: Any punitive action, like sudden poor reviews or suspensions following your request for an accommodation for your disability, can be considered illegal retaliation. Recognizing these patterns is the first step in protecting your rights. These insights are for any California employee in... Read more
Denied Workplace Accommodations After Bodily Injury? California Employers Have Specific Obligations
📌 Key Takeaways Denied or ignored after a bodily injury? California law sets clear rules for how employers must handle disability accommodations and the patterns that expose noncompliance. FEHA Sets the Baseline: Covered employers (5+ employees) must engage in a good-faith interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations for a disability, and once the accommodation is identified, it must be provided. Disability Definition Is Broad: Injury-related physical limitations, including temporary and non–work-related impairments, can qualify as disabilities in California, triggering accommodation obligations. Accommodations Must Be Considered: Effective options can include modified duties, schedule changes, assistive equipment, finite medical leave, or reassignment to a vacant role—the governing standard is effectiveness, not convenience. Only Narrow Grounds Justify Denial: An accommodation request can be denied based on an undue hardship, the employee’s inability to perform essential functions even with accommodation, or a supported direct threat analysis based on individualized, objective evidence. Know the... Read more
Wrongful Termination After Bodily Injury in California: Key FEHA Protections
📌 Key Takeaways If you were fired soon after a bodily injury, California’s FEHA may protect you. Here’s how to spot the issues and respond wisely: Disability-Based Firing Is Unlawful Under FEHA: Employers may not terminate you because of a physical disability, including temporary injuries that substantially limit major life activities. The Interactive Process Is Mandatory: Once an employer knows about your disability, they must engage in a timely, good-faith dialogue to explore reasonable accommodations rather than dismissing requests. Retaliation Is Prohibited: Penalizing or firing you for requesting accommodations, disclosing a disability, reporting discrimination, or participating in investigations can constitute retaliation under FEHA. Timing, Remarks, and Paper Trails Matter: Close timing to disclosure, discriminatory comments, sudden negative write-ups, and departures from policy may help establish a disability-related motive. Prepared, documented, and advised = stronger protection. For California employees recovering from bodily injuries and wondering whether a sudden termination crossed... Read more
Featured Employment Case
A former employee filed a pregnancy discrimination action against her former employer under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of former employer. On appeal the Court of Appeal held that former employer’s disability leave policy did not discriminate against pregnant employees in violation of FEHA. The Court provided the following explanation in its opinion: “The order granting summary judgment aptly framed the issue as follows: Does a collective bargaining agreement that gives a one-year leave of absence to employees who are disabled by occupational injury, and a six-month leave of absence to employees who are disabled by non-occupational injury including pregnancy, discriminate against pregnant employees and violate FEHA? The trial court found that it did not. We agree. FEHA prohibits employment discrimination based on sex and other protected classifications and applies to all California employers with more than *110 five employees. (§ 12900 et seq.; § 12926, subd. (d).) Pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination. (Williams v. MacFrugal’s Bargains—Close–outs, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 479, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 98, rev. den.; Badih v. Myers (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1294, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 229.) A pregnancy discrimination claim under FEHA is analogous to a federal claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which applies to employers with fifteen or more employees. (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e; Williams, supra, at pp. 481–483, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 98.) Lucky is subject to both Title VII and FEHA. (42 U.S.C., § 2000e(b); § 12926, subd. (d).) Several provisions of FEHA pertain to pregnancy discrimination. Section 12940, subdivision (a) makes it an unlawful practice for an employer “because of … sex … to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.” Section 12926, subdivision (o) provides that “ ‘[s]ex’ includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.” Section 12945 details specific employment practices that constitute pregnancy discrimination under FEHA, including policies relating to pregnancy leaves and temporary light duty assignments. Section 12945, subdivision (b)(2) makes it an unlawful employment practice to deny a leave of absence on account of pregnancy for a reasonable period, not to exceed four months, “during which the female employee is disabled on account of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” As an employer subject to FEHA, Lucky was required to provide eligible employees with at least four months of pregnancy disability leave, even if it did not offer such leave to employees injured by other causes. Lucky offered six months of pregnancy disability leave to employees who had worked there for more than one year, and four months of leave to employees who had worked for a shorter period of time. Its policy did not violate section 12945, subdivision (b)(2) per se. Spaziano claims that even though Lucky provided her with more than the four months of leave required by section 12945, subdivision (b)(2), it violated section 12945, subdivision (b)(1) by providing pregnant workers with less disability leave than workers injured on the job. Among other *111 things, subdivision (b)(1) makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse a pregnant employee “the same benefits or privileges of employment granted by that employer to other persons not so affected who are similar in their ability or inability to work, including to take disability or sick leave or any other accrued leave which is made available by the employer to temporarily disabled employees.” Section 12945, subdivision (b)(1) does not apply to Title VII employers such as Lucky. Section 12945, subdivision (e) provides, “Except for paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), and paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (c), this section shall be inapplicable to any employer subject to Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.” The inapplicability of section 12945, subdivision (b)(1) does not mean that Lucky was permitted to offer pregnant employees less disability leave than it offered all other temporarily disabled employees who were similarly situated in their inability to work. Such a leave policy would discriminate against certain disabled employees based on the fact of their pregnancy and would constitute sex discrimination under sections 12940, subdivision (a) and 12926, subdivision (o). These statutes do apply to Title VII employers. (§ 12926, subd. (b).) The question presented here is whether Lucky’s policy provides pregnant employees with less disability leave than that it offers other disabled employees. The Fair Employment and Housing Commission has promulgated regulations interpreting FEHA, which make no distinction between Title VII and non-Title VII employers. (See § 12925, subd. (a), § 12935, subd. (a); 2 Cal.Code Regs., §§ 7286.4; 7291.2, subd. (h).) The FEHA policy towards reinstating employees after a pregnancy disability leave is summarized as follows: “If an employee disabled by pregnancy has taken a pregnancy disability leave for longer than four months, an employer must treat the **382 employee the same regarding reinstatement rights as it treats any other similarly situated employee who has taken a similar length [of] disability leave. For example, if the employer has a policy which allows reinstatement to other *112 temporarily disabled employees who are disabled for six months, the employer must also allow reinstatement to a woman disabled by pregnancy for six months.” (2 Cal.Code Regs., § 7291.9, subd. (d).) Spaziano argues that Lucky’s policy is discriminatory because pregnancy will never qualify as an industrial injury. Her premise in incorrect. Lucky’s policy under the CBA does not run afoul of the above regulation or FEHA. Lucky does not provide workers who are disabled due solely to their pregnancy with less leave than workers who are disabled due to other non-industrial causes. Though it does not give them as much disability leave as employees who are injured on the job, this distinction is not based on sex or pregnancy. Spaziano was limited to six months of leave not because she was pregnant, but because her disability was not work related.
Spaziano v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 69 Cal. App. 4th 106, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 378 (1999)
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results