Bell Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the rights of the residents of Bell, 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.
Bell is a city in Los Angeles. It covers only two and a half square miles but is home to roughly 40,000 residents. It lies within the zip codes 90201 and 90202. The City of Bell is a warm and friendly town composed of young families, small businesses, and an industrial district located on the east bank of the Los Angeles River in southeast Los Angeles County. Bell is known as the key to industry, given it is located in the heart of the central Los Angeles industrial market. Its’ convenient location and close proximity to transportation corridors including Interstate 5 (Santa Ana Freeway), Interstate 710 (Long Beach Freeway) and the Union Pacific Railroad make Bell an ideal venue for business interests. Bell is nestled between the San Gabriel Mountains and the port of Long Beach in the Los Angeles basin. It is only minutes away from Downtown Los Angeles, as well as cultural and sports attractions including Dodger Stadium, Staples Center, and the Walt Disney Concert Hall. With offices in Burbank, Orange, and Riverside the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Bell. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Bell.
Ways To Find The Best Employment Lawyer in Bell
Bell thrives as a vibrant community, boasting a plethora of legal professionals for its residents to consider. Conducting an online search for “employment lawyer Bell” or “wrongful termination attorney Bell” often results in a slew of paid advertisements from employment lawyers far and wide. Deciphering which attorney possesses the necessary skills and experience can be a daunting task when relying solely on internet advertisements. For individuals seeking legal representation, it can be challenging to assess an attorney’s expertise in handling employment trials and litigation when all they have to go by is an advertisement. However, at the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each attorney brings nearly two decades of invaluable experience to the table. Our legal team boasts a well-established track record of success, having effectively represented both employees and employers. Our firm’s philosophy places a premium on quality over quantity. Instead of investing in extensive advertising campaigns, our attorneys are dedicated to spending their time in courtrooms, diligently advocating for our clients’ rights. We understand that actions speak louder than words, and we welcome the opportunity to provide references from satisfied clients upon request. Additionally, you can browse through our online reviews to gain further confidence in our abilities. With conveniently located offices just minutes away from Bell, we are poised and ready to deliver top-tier legal representation to the residents of Bell, ensuring that their legal needs are met with the highest caliber of expertise and professionalism.
We Offer Effective Representation To Bell Residents In The Following Matters:
Featured Employment Case:
Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167
This is a seminal case in California jurisprudence. The Plaintiff in the case, Gordon Tameny instituted an action against his former employer, Atlantic Richfield Company (Arco), alleging that Arco had discharged him after 15 years of service because he refused to participate in an illegal scheme to fix retail gasoline prices. Plaintiff sought recovery from Arco on a number of theories, contending, inter alia, that Arco’s conduct in discharging him for refusing to commit a criminal act was tortious and subjected the employer to liability for compensatory and punitive damages under normal tort principles. Arco demurred to the complaint, contending that plaintiff’s allegations, even if true, did not state a cause of action in tort. Arco conceded that California authorities establish that an employee who has been fired for refusing to perform an illegal act may recover from his former employer for “wrongful discharge.” Arco contended, however, that the employee’s remedy in such cases sounds only in contract and not in tort. The trial court accepted Arco’s argument and sustained a general demurrer to plaintiff’s tort causes of action. Plaintiff appealed the ensuing judgment. The California Supreme Court concluded that the trial court judgment must be reversed with respect to the issue of tort liability. The Supreme Court explained that, past cases did not sustain Arco’s contention that an employee who has been discharged because of his refusal to commit an illegal act at his employer’s behest can obtain redress only by an action for breach of contract. Rather, the Supreme Court held that the relevant authorities both in California and throughout the country establish that when an employer’s discharge of an employee violates fundamental principles of public policy, the discharged employee may maintain a tort action and recover damages traditionally available in such actions. The Court opinion states in relevant part as follows: “We hold that an employer’s authority over its employee does not include the right to demand that the employee commit a criminal act to further its interests, and an employer may not coerce compliance with such unlawful directions by discharging an employee who refuses to follow such an order. An employer engaging in such conduct violates a basic duty imposed by law upon all employers, and thus an employee who has suffered damages as a result of such discharge may maintain a tort action for wrongful discharge against the employer. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff’s tort action for wrongful discharge: Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 178–179.
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results