Bell Gardens Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to fight for the rights of workers in Bell Gardens dealing with discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace. The firm also stands ready to provide small businesses in Bell Gardens economical and efficient solutions to problems involving employment law.  Our substantial experience in approaching employment disputes from both sides gives us rare insight into the mindset of the opponent, which truly goes a long way to achieving the best possible outcome.

About Bell Gardens, California

Bell Gardens is a city located in southeast Los Angeles County.  It is home to more than 45,000 residents.  It covers approximately three-square miles and encompasses the following zip code: 90201.  The City of Bell Gardens has a rich history dating back to the late 1700’s when the area was associated with a large amount of land situated along the lower basin of the Rio Hondo area in Los Angeles County. Bell Gardens was once a bustling agricultural center for immigrants escaping the Mexican government. Among them was one of California’s first families, the Lugos. In 1771 Antonio Lugo was a 35-year-old corporal in the Spanish army and was given a land grant of more than 29,514 acres, which today is known as the cities of Bell Gardens, Maywood, Vernon, Huntington Park, Walnut Park, Cudahy, South Gate, Lynwood and Commerce. The land grant was given as reward for his military service during the establishment of the Franciscan Missions in California while being the attendant of colonization for the area. The land’s original adobe dwelling was built in 1795 and named Casa de Rancho San Antonio by Lugo. When Gage occupied the residence, he added two wings and redwood siding, installed bronze fireplaces, and imported expensive fabric wallpaper from France to serve as background for the Gage coat of arms, which enjoys a place of prominence in every room. By 1900, Bell Gardens was divided into tracts of 40 to 100 acres. The land adjoining the city of Bell became known as Bell Gardens. In 1930, O.C. Beck purchased property and begins to build affordable homes for those suffering through the depression era. World War I and World War II brought defense plants to the area that helped build the economic stability and the population, which led to construction of new homes, more schools, and a prosperous business climate. Bell Gardens is a relatively young city. Since its incorporation on August 1, 1961, Bell Gardens has grown from a population of approximately 4,000 to nearly 45,000. With offices in Burbank, Orange, and Riverside the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Bell Gardens. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Bell Gardens.

How To Find The Best Bell Gardens Employment Attorneys

Finding the right labor lawyer in Bell Gardens is not always easy. There are many different firms to choose from but the approach of each firm varies significantly.  Not every employee attorney in Bell Gardens will be a good fit for every case.  Some employment lawyers may prefer a quick and easy low value settlement over a big drawn-out fight which can eventually lead to a full value resolution. An internet search for “employment lawyer Bell Gardens” or “wrongful termination attorney in Bell Gardens” will likely produce paid advertisements from tons of lawyers who would be happy to take the easy approach. The goal of the Bell Gardens, California labor lawyers at the Akopyan Law Firm is to achieve the best possible outcome for each client regardless of how big of a fight it would take to get there.  Our commitment to performing quality work on every case requires us to limit our practice to a certain number of cases, but every employee who becomes our client is treated like family.  We are proud of the first class personal 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.  Our Bell Gardens employment lawyers fight passionately for our clients as confirmed by the excellent results they have achieved. If you are looking for employment lawyers in Bell Gardens, call us today for a complimentary case evaluation.

We Can Provide Top Notch Service to Bell Gardens Residents In Cases Involving:

Featured Employment Case:

City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143

In this important case a former employee brought suit against city for disability discrimination in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), common-law wrongful discharge, breach of contract and infliction of emotional distress. The Superior Court, overruled the employer’s demurrers to FEHA and common-law claims, and the city petitioned for a writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal denied petition. The Supreme Court granted review, superseding the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court, Chin, J., held that: (1) Labor Code section prohibiting disability discrimination on basis of work-related injury did not provide an exclusive remedy precluding FEHA and common-law wrongful discharge claims by employee who was allegedly terminated because of work-related knee injury, and (2) disability discrimination could form the basis of a common law wrongful discharge claim.  Among other things, the Court held as follows: “In conclusion, we hold that section 132a does not provide an exclusive remedy and does not preclude an employee from pursuing FEHA and common law wrongful discharge remedies. We disapprove any cases that suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, we emphasize that not every instance of disability discrimination in violation of section 132a gives rise to a valid FEHA claim. The term “disability” has a specific meaning in the context of the workers’ compensation law that it has in no other context. On the other hand, the FEHA includes detailed definitions of “ ‘Physical disability’ ” and “ ‘Mental disability’ ” that make no reference to the workers’ compensation law. (Gov.Code, § 12926, subds. (i), (k).) Because the standards for establishing disability discrimination may well be different under the FEHA than under section 132a, a decision in an employee’s favor on a section 132a petition would not establish a FEHA violation. Moreover, to the extent section 132a and the FEHA overlap, equitable principles preclude double recovery for employees. For example, employees who settle their claims for lost wages and work benefits as part of a section 132a proceeding could not recover these damages as part of a subsequent FEHA proceeding.” City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143, 1158.  The Court further elaborated that “disability discrimination can form the basis of a common law wrongful discharge claim. Because section 132a does not provide the exclusive remedy for discrimination based on a work-related disability, the trial court was correct to overrule the demurrer to Dillon’s common law wrongful discharge cause of action.” City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143, 1160–1161. The Court explained, that “disability sometimes impacts a person’s ability to perform a particular job, in which case the employer may treat a disabled employee differently than a nondisabled employee. Nevertheless, if disabled employees can prove that they can perform the job duties as effectively as nondisabled employees, taking into consideration the possibility, if any, that their condition will change, as well as the employer’s short- and long-term needs, then we think discrimination based on disability, like sex and age discrimination, violates a “substantial and fundamental” public policy and can form the basis of a common law wrongful discharge claim. Nevertheless, this remedy must be “carefully tethered to fundamental policies that are delineated” in the FEHA on which it is based. (Gantt, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 1095, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680.) Accordingly, just as disability discrimination in violation of section 132a does not alone establish a valid FEHA claim, it also does not alone establish a valid common law wrongful discharge claim. Furthermore, to the extent section 132a, the FEHA, and the common law remedies overlap, equitable principles preclude multiple recoveries for the same injury.” Id.

 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: Failure to Accommodate
$100 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Bicycle Collision
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Pedestrian Collision