Azuza Employment Attorneys

The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the rights of the residents of Azuza, regardless of whether they are employees or employers.  If your cause is just and involves employment law, give us a call to see how we can help.

Azuza, California

Azusa is a city in the San Gabriel Valley and is home to more than 50,000 residents.  It covers approximately ten square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 91702, and 91741. The City of Azusa was founded in 1887 and incorporated as a general law city on December 29, 1898.  The first recorded reference to Azusa was found in the diary of Father Juan Crespi, diarist and engineer with Portola Expedition in 1769, then on its way northward from San Diego in search of Monterey Bay. Having come northward through Brea Canyon, Crespi, while camping in the vicinity of Bassett, remarked of the river and the valley to the north. The valley is 3 leagues wide and paralleled by a tall mountain range running east and west. This stream and valley he named the San Miguel Archangel after the Patron Saint of the day, as was their custom. However, he also referred to this area as The Azusa in his diary. Here roamed the Shoshonean-Indian, locally known as the Gabrieleno when the area of Azusa was first inhabited by white immigrants and homesteaders. Their community was known as Asuksa-nga. It is said Azusa was derived from the native American name. An area of land some 3 miles square was given to Luis Arenas by the Mexican Government as a Mexican land grant in 1841. Arenas built an adobe home on the hill in the eastern part of the City, farmed and raised stock, and called his newly acquired possession El Susa Rancho. In addition, Arenas owned a 1 B third interest in the San Jose and San Jose Adicion with Ignacio Palomares and Ricardo Vejar. In 1844 Arenas sold all of his holdings to Henry Dalton, an Englishman who acquired his wealth in buying and shipping goods from Peru to Wilmington Harbor, now Los Angeles Harbor, and San Francisco. Don Enrique Dalton, after paying $7,000 to Arenas for El Susa Rancho, changed the name to Azusa Rancho de Dalton. On the Azusa Rancho, Mr. Dalton planted a vineyard extending northward from the Dalton Hill to the Sierra Madre Mountains. He built a winery, a distillery, a vinegar house, a meat smokehouse, and a flour mill, importing the mill stones from France in 1854 and erecting his mill on a ranch ditch which delivered water to the south portion of his property. During the great flood years of 1861 and 1862, the flour mills along the various canyons from San Bernardino were washed out and most of the people brought their grain to the Azusa Rancho de Dalton for grinding. During 1854, gold was discovered in the San Gabriel Canyon and a town named El Doradoville was built at the fork of the San Gabriel to take care of some 2,000 miners who had filed on gold claims along the east fork of the canyon. During the next 20 years, it is estimated that $12 million in gold was mined and shipped to various mints throughout the United States. The town of El Doradoville was destroyed by flood waters in 1861 and 1862. In 1860, the United States Land Office sent an engineer from Washington, DC, who surveyed the Dalton Azusa Rancho, taking a mile and 1-half from its southern boundary and a mile and 1-half from its eastern boundary, making the property taken by the Federal Government subject to homesteading. An influx of people began streaming into the area, filing usually on 40, 80 or 120 acre lands for their homesteads. This Mr. Dalton considered unfair. He had not the money to fight the case through the courts and borrowed money from Jonathan S. Slauson, one of the early Los Angeles bankers. Mr. Dalton had to make several trips to Washington, DC. The courts decided against him after 24 years of litigation. Consequently in 1880, Mr. Dalton turned the Azusa Rancho over to Mr. Slauson, who deeded a 55-acre homestead to Mr. Dalton at the head of Azusa Avenue and Sierra Madre Avenue. In 1874, Henry Dalton and Captain J. R. Gordon imported from Italy 15 stands of Italian honey bees, considered the first honey bees imported into the United States. This developed into a large industry in the production of honey throughout the United States. In 1868, the Azusa Valley had grown considerably and schooling for the children was getting to be a problem. A meeting was called on Dalton Hill and a citizens committee was formed to take the necessary steps to provide a Provisional School for the community. The first school, built of logs and brush, was the first public school built in the Upper San Gabriel Valley, then called Azusa Valley. In 1891, the first Union High School, named Citrus, was built at the southwest corner of Citrus near Broadway. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles which is minutes away from Azuza. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide legal services to both employees and employers in Azuza.

How To Identify The Best Employment Lawyer in Azuza

Azuza is a vibrant community, offering a plethora of choices when it comes to legal representation. Conducting an online search for “Azuza employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Azuza” often results in a barrage of paid advertisements, making it challenging for individuals to discern the right attorney solely based on these ads. It can be perplexing to gauge an attorney’s proficiency in the field and their experience in handling employment trials and litigation through these advertisements. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we differentiate ourselves through nearly two decades of extensive experience. Each of our attorneys boasts a remarkable track record of success, representing both employees and employers effectively. Our firm prioritizes quality over quantity in every aspect of our legal practice. Located just minutes away from Azuza, our offices are strategically positioned to provide residents of Azuza with top-tier legal representation. We are committed to delivering the highest caliber of legal services to our clients, ensuring their rights and interests are protected.

We Can Aggressively Represent Azuza Residents In Employment Law Disputes Involving:

Featured Employment Case Out of Azuza, California:

In the case of Covina-Azusa Fire Fighters Union, Local 2415, IAFF, AFL-CIO v. City of Azusa (81 Cal.App.3d 48), the Covina-Azusa Fire Fighters Union, Local 2415 (the Union), appealed from a judgment that denied its petition for a writ of mandate. The Union sought to compel the City of Azusa (the City) to recognize a specific form of a public employee bargaining unit. The Union alleged that the City failed to follow the requirements of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMB Act) in its determination of the appropriate public employee bargaining unit for the City’s fire department employees.

The MMB Act was enacted to establish a system of communication between public employers and their employees for resolving disputes related to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Act aims to improve personnel management and employer-employee relations within public agencies and provides a basis for recognizing the right of public employees to join organizations and be represented by them in their employment relationships with public agencies.

In this case, the City of Azusa had not adopted a local employee relations procedure for implementing the MMB Act. Instead, it relied on its own civil service rules and regulations for dealing with employee organizations. In 1974, the City recognized the “Azusa Firemen’s Association” as an employee representative for firemen, fire engineers, and fire captains. However, in 1975, six fire captains informed the City that they did not want to be represented by the Azusa Firemen’s Association for specific purposes and requested a separate classification.

The Union subsequently requested that the City recognize it as the appropriate bargaining representative for a unit consisting of fire captains, engineers, and firemen. The City asked for proof that employees within those classifications wanted to be represented by the Union. The dispute was submitted to the Division of Conciliation of the Department of Industrial Relations, but mediation efforts failed. The City determined that there was a community of interest between firemen and engineers, and the Union was recognized as a representative of employees within that unit.

The Union filed a petition for a writ of mandate, seeking to compel the City to recognize the Union as a recognized employee organization under the MMB Act. The trial court ordered further mediation, and the parties met with a conciliator. However, the Union refused to provide membership cards to the City attorney. The trial court eventually denied the writ of mandate.

The Court of Appeals first addressed whether an appeal could be filed from the trial court’s order. They noted that an appeal generally lies from an order denying a petition for a writ of mandate. However, the appeal’s availability depends on whether further orders were contemplated. In this case, the trial court’s minute order did not call for further action, so the appeal was deemed appropriate.

The Union argued that the trial court was in error for failing to make findings of fact, which would impact the appeal’s availability. The court discussed the circumstances under which findings might not be required and concluded that findings were necessary in this case, given the factual issues raised by the Union’s claims.

The main legal issue in the case was whether the City had an obligation to consult in good faith with the Union before classifying the fire captains as management and excluding them from the bargaining unit. The Union argued that such consultation was required under the MMB Act, even before the Union’s official recognition as an employee organization. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Union’s position, emphasizing that the City was required to meet and consult in good faith regarding the unit determination, irrespective of the Union’s recognition status.

The City contended that it had no duty to meet and consult regarding the appropriate unit dimensions until after recognizing the Union as an employee representative. However, the Court explained that the City’s obligation to recognize the Union as an employee organization was ministerial once the Union’s status as representing some employees was conceded. As such, the City could not refuse to meet and consult about the unit determination based on non-recognition.

The Court also clarified that, without specific rules and regulations in place pursuant to the MMB Act, the City had to recognize all employee organizations representing at least some employees. The Court rejected the Union’s assumption that if the Union represented a majority of the employees, it must be considered the exclusive bargaining representative for all employees. The Court emphasized that the City’s determination of the appropriate unit could only be upset for an abuse of discretion, and the courts should apply traditional mandate action principles to do so.

The Court found that the City had an obligation to consult in good faith with the Union before classifying fire captains as management and excluding them from the bargaining unit. It also found that the trial court should make findings regarding whether there was good faith consultation and whether the City abused its discretion in making the unit determination. The Court of Appeals reversed the order appealed from and remanded the case for further proceedings.

 Avvo Rating 10 Superb

   

Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients

Check Out Our Case Results

$6.131 MillionEmployment: Disability Discrimination
$3.85 MillionEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$950 ThousandEmployment: Retaliation
$800 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$750 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$700 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination / Race Discrimination
$658 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$650 ThousandPersonal Injury: Automobile Collision
$375 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$325 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$300 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination / Race Discrimination
$295 ThousandEmployment: Wage and Hour
$265 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$250 ThousandEmployment: Pregnancy Discrimination
$250 ThousandEmployment Law: Disability Discrimination
$240 ThousandEmployment: Disability Discrimination
$240 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$200 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$199 ThousandEmployment: Pregnancy Discrimination
$195 ThousandEmployment: Religious Discrimination
$193 ThousandEmployment: Failure to Accommodate
$180 ThousandEmployment: Unpaid Wages
$175 ThousandEmployment: Whistleblower Retaliation
$175 ThousandEmployment: Medical Leave Retaliation
$174 ThousandEmployment: Wage and Hour
$167 ThousandEmployment: Wage and Hour
$160 ThousandEmployment: Unpaid Wages
$158 ThousandBreach of Contract
$150 ThousandEmployment: Reverse Race Discrimination
$130 ThousandEmployment: Race Discrimination
$125 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$125 ThousandEmployment: Disability Discrimination
$125 ThousandEmployment: Medical Leave Retaliation
$120 ThousandEmployment: Unpaid Commission Wages
$120 ThousandEmployment: Retaliation
$120 ThousandPersonal Injury: Automobile Collision
$107 ThousandEmployment: Whistleblower Retaliation
$100 ThousandEmployment: Religious Discrimination
$100 ThousandEmployment: Failure to Accommodate
$100 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Bicycle Collision
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Pedestrian Collision