Beaumont Employment Lawyers
The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands as a steadfast advocate, ready to ardently champion the rights of workers in Beaumont who find themselves ensnared in the distressing webs of workplace discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or any other form of illegal misconduct. We understand that navigating these treacherous waters can be daunting and emotionally taxing, and that’s why our dedicated legal team is here to provide guidance, support, and resolute representation.
Furthermore, our commitment extends beyond individual employees. We also extend our services to the vibrant small business community in Beaumont, offering them economical and efficient solutions to intricate problems entwined with employment law. Recognizing the unique challenges that small businesses face, we tailor our strategies to meet their specific needs, ensuring compliance with the law and fostering a fair and productive workplace environment.
What sets us apart is our extensive experience in approaching employment disputes from both sides of the aisle. This multifaceted perspective affords us a rare insight into the mindset of our opponents, enabling us to craft more effective legal strategies. We firmly believe that understanding the adversary’s viewpoint is a critical element in achieving the best possible outcomes for our clients.
So, whether you’re an individual worker seeking justice in the face of workplace injustices or a small business owner striving to navigate the complex labyrinth of employment law, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is your unwavering ally. Our commitment to quality, rooted in almost two decades of experience, drives us to provide personalized, results-oriented legal representation. We are here to stand by your side, ready to help you overcome the challenges that employment law issues may present.
About Beaumont, California
Incorporated on November 18, 1912, the city of Beaumont is a city located in Riverside County. Beaumont, which is French for “Beautiful Mountain.” Beaumont proudly offers a rich history and rural charm. Originally settled in the mid-1800s as a stop along the Southern Pacific Railroad, people drawn to the beautiful mountain views, crisp air and abundance of apple orchards remained in the area and the City of Beaumont was incorporated on November 18, 1912. The City is home to more than 50,000 residents. It covers thirty square miles and encompasses the following zip codes: 92223. Beaumont’s neighbor cities include Banning to the east, Calimesa to the west and the unincorporated community of Cherry Valley to the north. With an elevation of 2,500 – 3,000 feet above sea level, Beaumont is at the peak on the San Gorgonio Pass between San Bernardino, California and Palm Springs, California. Beaumont is home to many master-planned communities. The following communities are currently under construction or have been built: Oak Valley Greens, Three Rings Ranch, Solera by Del Webb (later sold to Pulte Homes Inc.), Olivewood by Taylor Morrison, Sundance and Tournament Hills by Pardee Homes, Four Seasons by K. Hovnanian and Fairway Canyon.
The Best Beaumont Employment Attorneys
Locating the right labor lawyer in Beaumont can be a challenging endeavor. The legal landscape here offers a plethora of choices, with numerous firms presenting varied approaches to handling cases. It’s essential to understand that not every employee attorney in Beaumont will be well-suited for every case. Some employment lawyers may opt for a quick and easy, low-value settlement, preferring to avoid protracted legal battles that could ultimately lead to a resolution at full value. When conducting an internet search for “employment lawyer Beaumont” or “wrongful termination attorney in Beaumont,” you are likely to be inundated with paid advertisements from numerous lawyers who are more than willing to take the path of least resistance. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., our Beaumont, California labor lawyers are steadfastly committed to achieving the best possible outcome for each client, regardless of the magnitude of the challenge. Our dedication to delivering quality legal work on every case necessitates that we limit our caseload. However, rest assured that every employee who entrusts us with their case is treated like family. We take immense pride in offering first-class personal service, but we don’t expect you to take our word for it. Feel free to explore what our clients have to say about their experiences working with us. Our client relationships often extend beyond the lifespan of the case, reflecting the trust and bonds we build. Our Beaumont employment lawyers are known for their passionate advocacy and have an impressive track record of achieving excellent results. If you are in search of employment lawyers in Beaumont, don’t hesitate to reach out to us for a complimentary case evaluation. With offices conveniently located in Riverside, Orange, and Burbank, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Beaumont. Our employment lawyers are poised and prepared to deliver world-class legal services and top-notch representation to the residents of Beaumont. When you require experienced professionals who will fight zealously on your behalf, we are here to serve you.
We Can Help Beaumont Residents With:
Featured Employment Case:
In the matter of Mathieu v. Norrell Corp. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1191 [10 Cal.Rptr.3d 52, 65] Laura M. Mathieu filed a lawsuit against various parties, including her former employer Norrell Corporation, a temporary employment agency, and Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, her workplace through Norrell. Mathieu alleged sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, all in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
Mathieu was initially placed at Gulfstream Aerospace by Norrell, even though she knew her former boyfriend, Richard Fluck, was also employed there. Mathieu claimed that Fluck harassed her in various ways, making it challenging for her to perform her duties. She reported the harassment to both her supervisor at Gulfstream and Gulfstream’s human resources department, but the only action taken was to advise Mathieu and Fluck to stay away from each other.
After her assignment at Gulfstream was terminated, Mathieu believed that it was due to her complaints about Fluck’s behavior. Mathieu filed a lawsuit against Fluck, Gulfstream, and Norrell. However, she settled her claims against Gulfstream and Fluck.
Norrell moved for summary judgment, seeking a dismissal of Mathieu’s claims against them. The trial court granted summary judgment on several issues but not on the retaliation claim. Mathieu appealed, contending that triable issues of fact existed regarding her retaliation claim.
The appeals court agreed with Mathieu, finding that Norrell and Gulfstream could both be considered her employers for potential liability for sexual harassment and retaliation. They explained that this interpretation was in line with the purpose of FEHA to prevent and eliminate sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. The possibility of dual employment under the FEHA was recognized: “Where an employer sends an employee to do work for another person, and both have the right to exercise certain powers of control over the employee, that employee may be held to have two employers—his original or ‘general’ employer and a second, the ‘special’ employer.’”
The court found that Norrell’s response to Mathieu’s initial harassment complaint was appropriate, but they erred in granting summary judgment on her retaliation claim. Mathieu’s claim of retaliation was based on Norrell’s failure to take corrective actions after her termination from Gulfstream. The court determined that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether Norrell had engaged in retaliation.
The court also addressed Mathieu’s wrongful termination claim and found that she filed it beyond the statute of limitations. They rejected her argument for equitable tolling based on her concurrent state and federal administrative proceedings, as it was not applicable in this context.
Finally, Mathieu’s claim for punitive damages against Norrell was dismissed since there was no evidence that Norrell’s conduct met the high legal standards for fraud, oppression, or malice required for punitive damages.
In summary, the appeals court reversed the judgment, granting summary adjudication on certain claims and allowed Mathieu’s claim for retaliation to proceed to trial, while the claims of sexual harassment, wrongful termination, and punitive damages were dismissed.
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results