Brea Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the rights of the residents of Brea, 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.
Brea is city located in Orange County. Brea covers roughly twelve square miles but is home to roughly 40,000 residents. Brea lies within zip codes: 92821, 92822, and 92823. The villages of Olinda and Randolph grew and merged as the economy boomed. On January 19, 1911, the town’s map was filed under the new name of Brea, from the Spanish language word for natural asphalt, also called bitumen, pitch or tar. With a population of 752, Brea was incorporated on February 23, 1917, as the eighth official city of Orange County. As oil production declined, some agricultural development took place, especially lemon and orange groves. In the 1920s, the Brea Chamber of Commerce promoted the city with the slogan “Oil, Oranges, and Opportunity.” In 1950, Brea had a population of 3,208, which is 641 more than ten years prior. The citrus groves gave way gradually to industrial parks and residential development. In 1956, Carl N. Karcher opened the first two Carl’s Jr. restaurants in Anaheim, California and Brea, California. The opening of the Orange Freeway (57) and the Brea Mall in the 1970s spurred further residential growth, including large, planned developments east of the 57 Freeway in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. In the late 1990s, a 50-acre swath of downtown Brea centered on Brea Boulevard and Birch Street was heavily redeveloped into a shopping and entertainment area with movie theaters, sidewalk cafes, a live comedy club from The Improv chain, numerous shops and restaurants, and a weekly farmer’s market. It is locally known and signed as Downtown Brea. The downtown area opened in 2000. Sunset magazine named Brea one of the five best suburbs to live in the Western United States in early 2006. With offices in Burbank, Orange, and Riverside the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Brea. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Brea.
Your Search For The Best Employment Lawyer in Brea Ends Now
Brea stands as a thriving community, offering a multitude of legal professionals for its residents to consider. Initiating an online search for “employment lawyer Brea” or “wrongful termination attorney Brea” often inundates users with paid advertisements from employment lawyers located far and wide. The challenge, then, lies in identifying the right attorney equipped with the necessary skills and experience, especially when these choices are primarily based on paid internet advertisements. For individuals seeking legal representation, gauging an attorney’s proficiency in handling employment trials and litigation can be a formidable task when their primary reference point is an advertisement. However, at the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each attorney brings nearly two decades of invaluable experience to the forefront. Our legal team boasts a well-established track record of success, effectively representing both employees and employers. Our firm’s guiding principle revolves around prioritizing quality over quantity. Rather than inundating the market with advertising, our attorneys commit their time to the courtroom, vigorously advocating for our clients’ rights. We understand that actions speak louder than words and wholeheartedly welcome you to request references from satisfied clients. Additionally, you can explore our online reviews to gain added confidence in our abilities. With conveniently located offices just minutes away from Brea, we are well-prepared to provide top-tier legal representation to the residents of Brea, ensuring that their legal needs are met with the utmost level of expertise and professionalism.
We Are Ready To Fight For Brea Residents In Matters Which Involve:
Featured Employment Case
Gould v. Maryland Sound Indus., Inc., 31 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 718 (1995), as modified (Feb. 9, 1995)
An employee brought an action against his former employer and two management level employees after he was terminated as sales representative. The Superior Court, sustained defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend and entered a judgment of dismissal, and employee appealed. The Court of Appeal held that: (1) trial court erred in taking judicial notice of existence of written employment contract pursuant to indisputable facts provision of judicial notice statute; (2) employee’s claims that employer discharged him to avoid paying him accrued compensation and in retaliation for reporting overtime wage violations supported cause of action for tortious wrongful discharge; and (3) employee failed to state cause of action for breach of implied contract or of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The most important part of this decision was the Court’s recognition that an employee’s allegation that his employer terminated him to avoid paying him accrued commissions and vacation pay supported a cause of action for tortious wrongful discharge because discharge to avoid paying employee commissions, vacation pay and other amounts he had earned violated fundamental public policy of California. The Court observed that the prompt payment of wages due an employee is a fundamental public policy of this state and explained that “public policy has long favored the ‘full and prompt payment of wages due an employee.’ … ‘[W]ages are not ordinary debts…. [B]ecause of the economic position of the average worker and, in particular, his family, it is essential to the public welfare that he receive his pay’ promptly.” (Italics added; citations omitted.) Thus, the prompt payment of wages serves “society’s interests … through a more stable job market, in which its most important policies are safeguarded.” (Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 1095, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680. Italics added.) Labor Code section 216, subdivision (a) provides any employer who, “[h]aving the ability to pay, willfully refuses to pay wages due and payable after demand has been made” is guilty of a misdemeanor. The Legislature’s decision to criminalize violations of the prompt payment policy also supports Gould’s contention the policy involves a broad public interest, not merely the interest of the employee. (Cf. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 496, 509, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 578 [criminalization of employment fraud reflects broad public interest].) Th Court therefore concluded that a discharge for the purpose of avoiding the payment of earned commissions, vacation pay, and other amounts he had earned, does vioalte a fundamental public policy of California. Gould v. Maryland Sound Indus., Inc., 31 Cal. App. 4th 1137, 1147, 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 718, 723–24 (1995), as modified (Feb. 9, 1995)
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results