Burbank Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is dedicated to protecting the rights of workers in Burbank who suffer discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace.

City of Burbank

The City of Burbank is located in Los Angeles County, in the State of California, about twelve miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles.  It is located directly west of the City of Glendale and east of North Hollywood, which is part of the San Fernando Valley.   It covers the following postal zip codes: 91501, 91502, 91503, 91504, 91505, 91506, 91507, 91508, 91510, 91521, 91522, 91523, and 91526. Burbank began as a small farming town at its founding in 1887 and following incorporation in 1911 the city quickly grew into a residential and industrial community.  During the 1920s the motion picture and aircraft industries flourished, which led to the creation of residential developments. The city’s industries sustained Burbank through the difficult periods of the Great Depression and World War II and the city experienced its biggest growth (to date) during the late 1940s and 1950s.  Despite a lull period during the 1960s and 1970s, the city has grown to a community with a population of 103,286 (according to the 2007 census). Known as the “Media Capital of the World,” Burbank is home to more than 1,000 media and entertainment companies such as Walt Disney Studios, Warner Brothers, Cartoon Network, Netflix, and Nickelodeon.

Top Labor Lawyers Headquartered in Burbank, California

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in the City of Burbank.  From our main office in Burbank, we provide legal services to employees and employers throughout Los Angeles County.

Burbank Employment Law

The employment relationship between employers and employees in the City of Burbank is governed by a several distinct sets of local, state, and federal law. State laws governing the workplace in Burbank include, but are not limited to the California Constitution, the California Labor Code, the California Government Code, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the California Family Rights Act, and the California Business & Professions Code.  Federal laws governing the workplace in Burbank include but are not limited to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Employers in Burbank, California both large and small sometimes break the law, and some of them don’t even realize that they are doing it.  Likewise, many employees and workers in Burbank, California do not know their rights.  Unfortunately, this can cause the employee to experience anguish.  If you live or work in Burbank, California and feel that you may be mistreated at work don’t just take the abuse or sit there wondering “are there any Burbank, California labor law attorneys near me I can call” or “are there any employee lawyers in the City of Burbank me who can help?”  The fastest way to determine if your rights have been violated is to call one of our Burbank, California labor lawyers for a consultation.  At the Akopyan Law Firm, our Burbank attorneys listen with compassion and fight with passion to defend the rights of Burbank employees.  Every Burbank employee deserves to be left alone to do his or her work in an environment that is free of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.  If you are looking for employment attorneys in Burbank, California our experienced employment law attorneys are a phone call away.

Labor Law Attorneys in Burbank, California

If you are in Burbank, California, finding the best employment attorney may not be easy.  Although Burbank is a large and thriving City, it is known as a bedroom community, which means that there aren’t too many lawyers or law firms within the City limits. A Google search for “Burbank employment lawyer” will likely produce paid advertisements from other employment lawyers in surrounding areas, such as for example, downtown Los Angeles, or Century City. Selecting the right attorney with the requisite skill and experience is difficult when it is based on a paid advertisement from a non-local attorney.  Finding an attorney well versed in this area of the law, and experienced in handling such disputes is not as easy as it may seem.  You can try to find a labor lawyer by running online searches for “Burbank employment lawyer” or “labor lawyer in Burbank” but this may not be the fastest way to get answers to your questions.  You may end up speaking with an assistant, and never hearing from an actual attorney for labor laws.  If you wish to speak directly with an employment lawyer in Burbank, California, contact the Akopyan Law Firm and speak to one of our Burbank employment attorneys.  Each of our labor and employment lawyers has well over a decade of experience in employment law, and is ready to speak with you directly about your specific situation.

Employment Lawyer Burbank

A jack of all trades is a master of none.  If you seek the best employment attorney in Burbank for your case you should seek out a local attorney who specializes in employment law.  Our skilled Burbank labor law attorneys devote the vast and overwhelming majority of their time to protecting employees from injustice.  Most of our caseload consists of employment cases representing employees against their current or former employers.  We do sometimes represent local businesses in Burbank, California. Our Burbank employment lawyers are ready to help with cases involving discrimination, including, but not limited to, age, sex, and race discrimination, emotional distress, retaliation, wrongful termination, and many other forms of illegal conduct in the workplace. Our employment lawyers have a track record of success for both employers and employees in Burbank, California.

Labor Attorneys Burbank

Finding the right labor lawyer in Burbank is not always easy.  You can try running online searches for phrases like “labor attorneys near me” or “employee attorney near me” or “employee lawyer near me” but a random online search may not help you find the right lawyer for your case.  There are many different firms out there but the approach of each firm varies significantly.  Not every employee attorney in Burbank 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. The goal of the Burbank, 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 Burbank, California employment lawyers fight passionately for our clients as confirmed by the excellent results they have achieved. If you are looking for employment lawyers in Burbank, California call us today for a complimentary case evaluation.

We Can Help Burbank Employees and Employers With Cases Involving:

Featured Articles:

My Employer Fired Me Because I Refused to Sign a Non-Compete. Can I Sue for Wrongful Termination?

The relationship between employers and employees is governed by a complex interplay of legal rights and obligations. When an employer terminates an employee for refusing to sign a non-compete agreement, it raises important questions about the legality of such actions. Understanding Non-Compete Agreements 1. Nature of Non-Compete Agreements: A non-compete agreement is a contractual arrangement wherein an employee agrees not to engage in competitive activities with their former employer for a specified period and within a defined geographical area after leaving the company. 2. Legal Considerations: Non-compete agreements are subject to legal scrutiny, and their enforceability varies across jurisdictions. In California, non-compete agreements are disfavored and are subject to very strict limitations under state law. California’s Public Policy Against Non-Competes In California there is a strong public policy against the restraint of people from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind. This fundamental public policy is reflected in California Business and Professions Code Section §16600 which states as follows: "(a) Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void. (b)(1) This section shall be read broadly, in accordance with Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, to void the application of any noncompete agreement in an employment context, or any noncompete clause in an employment contract, no matter how narrowly tailored, that does not satisfy an exception in this chapter. (2) This subdivision ... Read more

Does the Voluntary Submission to Acts of Sexual Harassment Prevent Victims From Suing For Sexual Harassment?

Sexual harassment, as per California state law, is defined under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). It is described as unwanted and sexually suggestive behavior or actions that create a hostile or intimidating environment. This could include unwelcome sexual advances, assault, battery, stalking, or credible threats of violence. It's also important to note that sexual harassment is considered a form of discrimination based on sex/gender, including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Furthermore, quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when a term of employment is conditioned on submission to unwelcome sexual advances. Both employers and employees are prohibited from harassing any worker, employee, applicant, volunteer, or independent contractor. It's worth noting that these laws apply not only to inappropriate conduct motivated by sex or gender but also to any unlawful reasons. In this blog post, we will explore this intricate issue, delving into the legal nuances and considerations surrounding consent, power dynamics, and the right to a harassment-free workplace. Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, (1986) 477 U.S. 57 In the seminal case of Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, (1986) 477 U.S. 57 a bank employee sued the bank and her supervisor at the bank, claiming that during her employment at the bank she had been subjected to sexual harassment by the supervisor in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At the trial, the parties presented conflicting testimony about the existence of a sexual relationship between the employee and the supervisor. The District ... Read more

Featured Employment Case

Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 654

A terminated employee brought a suit against his former employer alleging wrongful termination. The Superior Court, for the County of Los Angeles sustained the employer’s demurrer without leave to amend, and the employee appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed, and the employee appealed a second time. Review was granted by the California Supreme Court, superseding the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court, Lucas, C.J., held that: (1) employee had no cause of action for tortious discharge in contravention of public policy; (2) employee’s cause of action for breach of an implied-in-fact contract promise to discharge him only for good cause was not barred by the statute of frauds; and (3) there is no tort cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an employment contract to employees who alleged they have been discharged in violation of the covenant.  The Court reiterated that a critical compontent of a Tameny claim is the contravention of a public policy, and not one which mere affects private interests: “In the present case, plaintiff alleges that defendant discharged him in “sharp derogation” of a substantial public policy that imposes a legal duty on employees to report relevant business information to management. An employee is an agent, and as such “is required to disclose to [his] principal all information he has relevant to the subject matter of the agency.” (2 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1987) Agency & Employment, § 41, p. 53; see Loughlin v. Idora Realty Co. (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 619, 629, 66 Cal.Rptr. 747; Jolton v. Minster Graf & Co. (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 516, 522, 128 P.2d 101.) Thus, plaintiff asserts, if he discovered information that might lead his employer to conclude that an employee was an embezzler, and should not be retained, plaintiff had a duty to communicate that information to his principal. It is unclear whether the alleged duty is one founded in statute. No enactment expressly requires an employee to report relevant information concerning other employees to his employer, and none prohibits discharge of the employee for so doing. The 1872 Civil Code, however, attempted to codify the common law of master-servant relations; its provisions, now in the Labor Code, provide that “[o]ne who, for a good consideration, agrees to serve another, shall perform the service, and shall use ordinary care and diligence therein, so long as he is thus employed.” ( ***218 Lab.Code, § 2854.) It is not clear whether the duty to communicate relevant information is subsumed under the statutory duty of ordinary care, or is a separate duty not codified by the 1872 Legislature. Whether or not there is a statutory duty requiring an employee to report information relevant to his employer’s interest, we do not find a substantial public policy prohibiting an employer from discharging an employee for performing that duty. Past decisions recognizing a tort action for discharge in violation of public policy seek to protect the public, by protecting the employee who refuses to commit a crime (Tameny, supra, 27 Cal.3d 167, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330; Petermann, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d 184, 344 P.2d 25), who reports criminal activity to proper authorities (Garibaldi v. Lucky Food Stores, Inc. (9th Cir.1984) 726 F.2d 1367, 1374; Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., supra, 421 N.E.2d 876, 879–880), or who discloses other illegal, unethical, or unsafe practices (Hentzel v. Singer Co. (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 290, 188 Cal.Rptr. 159 [working conditions hazardous to employees] ). No equivalent public interest bars the discharge of the present plaintiff. When the duty of an employee to disclose information to his employer serves only the private interest of the employer, the rationale underlying the Tameny cause of action is not implicated.” Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal. 3d 654, 669–71, 765 P.2d 373, 379–80 (1988)

 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
$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