Carson Employment Attorneys

The trial attorneys at Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. are prepared to vigorously defend the rights of Carson residents, whether they are employees or employers. If you have a just cause related to employment law, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us to explore how we can assist you.

Carson, California

Carson is a city in south Los Angeles County. Carson is home to more than 90,000 residents. It covers approximately twelve square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 90745, 90810, 90746, 90220, 90744, 90248, 90221, 90710, and 90502. Carson was part of a Spanish Land Grant known as Rancho San Pedro deeded to Juan Jose Dominguez over 200 years ago. During the incorporation process, the community was named after George Henry Carson, a member of the Dominguez family. “Dominguez” was a close second to “Carson” as the name for the newly incorporated city. Incorporated as a general law city on February 20, 1968, the city adopted the motto of “Future Unlimited.” Its strategic location and vacant land were part of the reason for that statement of unbridled optimism. While Carson is well known as an industrial center with unparalleled access to transportation and the Pacific Rim, it is also a culturally diverse community that is an attractive place to live and work. The city has more than 120 acres of park land divided into 12 parks, 2 mini-parks and sports/recreational facilities that include 3 swimming pools, a boxing center, a state-of-the art sports complex and the Carson Community Center. These facilities allow the residents of Carson to enjoy a variety of sports, recreational and cultural programs. With offices in Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Orange, Oxnard, Riverside, and San Bernardino the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Carson. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Carson.

Locating the Best Employment Lawyer in Carson Has Never Been Easier

Carson, as a thriving community, offers a wealth of legal professionals for its residents to consider. When conducting an online search for “employment lawyer Carson” or “wrongful termination attorney Carson,” you’re likely to encounter numerous paid advertisements from employment lawyers based in various locations. Navigating this sea of choices to select the right attorney with the necessary skills and experience can indeed be challenging when relying primarily on paid internet advertisements. For individuals in search of legal representation, evaluating 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 table. Our legal team boasts a well-established track record of success, effectively advocating for both employees and employers. Our firm’s guiding principle revolves around prioritizing quality over quantity. Rather than inundating the market with advertising, our attorneys dedicate their time to the courtroom, vigorously fighting for our clients’ rights. We understand that actions speak louder than words and wholeheartedly invite you to seek references from satisfied clients upon request. Additionally, you can explore our online reviews to gain added confidence in our capabilities. With conveniently located offices just minutes away from Carson, we are poised and prepared to provide top-tier legal representation to the residents of Carson, ensuring that their legal needs are met with the utmost level of expertise and professionalism. Your pursuit of justice begins here.

Employers and Employees in Carson Are Welcomed To Contact Us To Discuss Matters Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp., 214 Cal. App. 3d 590 (Ct. App. 1989)

A dentist who had hospital privileges and his wife who was a nurse in same hospital brought an action alleging sexual discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, retaliation in employment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and interference with business relations. The Superior Court sustained demurrers of the hospital and physician defendants, and an appeal was taken. The Court of Appeal, held that: (1) the nurse was entitled to amend her complaint to include specific details necessary to establish cause of action for environmental sexual harassment; (2) if the nurse successfully pleads cause of action for sexual harassment, then action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against physician and hospital will be legally viable; (3) the dentist was entitled to replead his action for retaliation against hospital for cancellation of his office lease; and (4) an action could not be maintained for interference with business relations. Among other things, the Court held as follows: “The United States Supreme Count held that a plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex had created a hostile or abusive work environment regardless of whether the plaintiff suffered tangible or economic loss.” Fisher at 607. The Court explaned further that “under EEOC guidelines, sexual harassment includes: “ ‘[u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.’ 29 CFR § 1604.11(a) (1985) … such sexual misconduct constitutes prohibited ‘sexual harassment,’ … where ‘such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offense working environment.’ § 1604.11(a)(3).” (Id. at p. 65, 106 S.Ct. at pp. 2404–2405.)… We conclude that pursuant to FEHA, under certain circumstances, the creation of an offensive or hostile work environment due to sexual harassment can violate FEHA irrespective of whether the complainant suffers tangible job detriment. We adopt the requirements for a prima facie claim of environmental sexual harassment set out in Priest v. Rotary (N.D.Cal.1986) 634 F.Supp. 571, 582 and Henson v. City of Dundee (11th Cir.1982) 682 F.2d 897, 903–905. The elements are: (1) plaintiff belongs to a protected group; (2) plaintiff was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) the harassment complained of was based on sex; (4) the harassment complained of was sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment; and (5) respondeat superior. Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp., 214 Cal. App. 3d 590, 607–08. (Ct. App. 1989).

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

$400 ThousandEmployment: Constructive Termination

$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

$210 ThousandEmployment: Family Leave Retaliation

$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: Religious Discrimination

$100 ThousandEmployment: Failure to Accommodate

$100 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination

$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Bicycle Collision

$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Pedestrian Collision

MORE RESULTS