Baldwin Park Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in Baldwin Park, California.
Baldwin Park, California
Baldwin Park is a city in the San Gabriel Valley. Baldwin Park has a rich history. Baldwin Park dates back 142 years to 1860 when it was a part of the cattle grazing land belonging to the San Gabriel Mission; later, Baldwin Park was part of Rancho Azusa de Dalton and the Rancho La Puente. A threat to the small community loomed in 1906 when “Lucky” Baldwin proposed to establish a town, “Baldwinville” nearby. To prevent this, Vineland residents invited the octogenarian Baldwin to a conference at Shultis’ grocery store. While entering the store, Baldwin slipped and would have fallen had Shultis’ wife not caught him, As the story goes, Baldwin, grateful to the lady, agreed to a change in plan, and Vineland became Baldwin Park. Baldwin Park was incorporated in 1956, becoming the forty-seventh General Law City in the state of California. Today, the city has changed from the small farming community in the late 1800’s to one of over 70,000 population. With the decline of cattle ranching due to severe drought, the area north of the present Ramona Boulevard was settled by small farmers-squatters. The community, named “Pleasant View”, was composed of small farms and Vineyards shaded by pepper trees. Water shortage was a major problem – farmers with no wells were forced to haul water in from the San Gabriel River. Since irrigation was not utilized, all crops depended upon rainfall for water. The community’s name was changed to “Vineland” in 1880, with business centered around the General store at today’s Los Angeles and La Rica streets. In 1890, the Vineland School District was formed; the settlers built a two-room school building which served as a meeting place for all public gatherings. Baldwin Park covers approximately seven square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 91732, 91706, and 91746. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Burbank which is minutes away from Baldwin Park. Thus, our employment lawyers stand ready to serve employees and employers in Baldwin Park with all their employment law needs.
Tips for Locating The Best Employment Lawyers in Baldwin Park
Due to its strategic location, Baldwin Park offers an array of options when it comes to legal professionals. There is a plethora of lawyers and law firms catering to the needs of Baldwin Park’s residents. In fact, some are so zealous that they would eagerly make their way to your living room if given the chance. When individuals and businesses in Baldwin Park find themselves entangled in complex legal matters, especially those pertaining to employment law, the real challenge lies in selecting the right attorney. This task is made even more daunting by the relentless barrage of flashy radio commercials and clichéd billboards, bus ads, and bench posters.
Most people resort to online searches, querying phrases like “Baldwin Park employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Baldwin Park.” However, these searches can yield results inundated with paid advertisements from billboard lawyers. While billboard lawyers might be suitable for certain cases, others demand top-tier representation from seasoned professionals.
At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each attorney boasts nearly two decades of legal experience. Our legal team boasts a proven track record of success in representing both employers and employees. Our firm’s ethos centers on prioritizing quality over quantity. Our attorneys prefer to invest their time in the courtroom, fiercely advocating for our clients’ rights, rather than crafting catchy radio jingles in a studio. We don’t expect you to take our word for it; we’re more than willing to furnish client references upon request. Additionally, you can peruse our online reviews for further assurance. With conveniently located offices just minutes away from Baldwin Park, we are prepared to offer the highest caliber of legal representation to Baldwin Park residents.
We Are Ready To Help Baldwin Park Residents With:
Featured Employment Case Out of Baldwin Park, California:
In the case of Martin Herrera vs. City of Baldwin Park et al., (2023 WL 3559520, Unplublished) Plaintiff Martin Herrera filed a lawsuit against his employer, the City of Baldwin Park, and his supervisor, Andrew Velebil, alleging that he had been subjected to sexual harassment by Velebil during his tenure as a police officer. Additionally, Herrera claimed that the City engaged in retaliation against him after he reported the harassment, which he argued was a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
The trial court, however, granted summary judgment in favor of the City and Velebil. Their argument centered around the claim that Herrera’s complaint was time-barred due to the one-year statute of limitations. They also asserted that his retaliation claim lacked legal merit.
To understand the case better, it is important to note that Martin Herrera joined the Baldwin Park Police Department in 2014. He alleged that during the period from July to September 2016, he experienced sexual harassment by Velebil. Notably, these allegations initially went unreported. It wasn’t until November 2017 that Herrera decided to complain about Velebil’s behavior, and it’s noteworthy that his complaint did not mention the alleged sexual harassment.
Herrera later initiated proceedings by filing a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) in March 2020, which eventually led to the present lawsuit.
The trial court’s ruling was based on its finding that Herrera’s sexual harassment claim was subject to the statute of limitations, making it time-barred. Moreover, the court determined that the retaliation claim brought by Herrera lacked legal merit.
With respect to the sexual harassment claim, the court asserted that the incidents described by Herrera were sporadic and isolated, which did not meet the criteria for establishing an actionable sexual harassment claim.
Regarding the retaliation claim, the court noted that the actions taken against Herrera, such as the temporary loss of his shotgun, shift changes, and the failure to promote him to the SWAT team, did not qualify as adverse employment actions. Furthermore, the court found that Herrera had failed to demonstrate that the reasons provided by the City for not promoting him to the SWAT team were a pretext for retaliation.
In essence, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s judgment, affirming that Herrera’s sexual harassment claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that his retaliation claim was legally unsound.
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results