Cathedral City Employment Attorneys

The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in Cathedral City, California.

Cathedral City, California

Cathedral City is a city located in Riverside County. Cathedral City is home to more than 50,000 residents. It covers approximately twenty two square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 92234 and 92235. Cathedral City sits at the northwestern end of the Coachella Valley between the San Bernardino Mountains to the north, and the San Jacinto Mountains to the south, with the San Gorgonio Pass to the West. The Coachella Valley was claimed by Spain in 1768 as part of Las Californias and then by Mexico in 1821 via the Treaty of Cordoba. After the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), the land was acquired by the United States and officially became part of the State of California in 1850. In 1852, US Army Colonel Henry Washington, a descendant of George Washington, was contracted to survey Southern California. In 1855, he reached the Coachella Valley. It was there that he found rock formations in the foothills of Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains that reminded him of the interior of the great cathedrals of Europe and named it Cathedral Canyon. In 1876, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians established their reservation which encompasses approximately 28% of Cathedral City. Today, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians own every other square mile of land in the area as they do in neighboring Palm Springs. In 1925, four developers created the area’s first housing subdivision north of the Cathedral Canyon area and named it Cathedral City. Incorporated in 1981, Cathedral City is the 2nd most populated city in the Coachella Valley after Indio

The Best Employment Lawyers in Cathedral City

Cathedral City, owing to its strategic location, offers its residents a wealth of options when it comes to legal representation. The city is home to numerous lawyers and law firms, each vying for the opportunity to serve Cathedral City’s diverse population. In today’s digital age, the quest to find the right attorney can be further complicated by the inundation of online advertisements, radio promotions, and billboard endorsements that bombard individuals seeking legal assistance. When confronting significant legal challenges involving employment law, both employers and employees in Cathedral City often grapple with the crucial decision of selecting the most suitable attorney for their specific needs. An online search for “Cathedral City employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Cathedral City” frequently yields a multitude of paid advertisements, making it challenging for individuals to distinguish between lawyers and assess their expertise. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we understand the importance of providing high-quality legal representation to our clients. Each of our attorneys brings nearly two decades of experience to the table, exemplifying a strong track record of success in advocating for the rights of both employers and employees. Our firm’s unwavering commitment centers on delivering exceptional legal services that prioritize quality over quantity. Unlike some law firms that invest heavily in marketing gimmicks, our attorneys prefer to invest their time in the courtroom, passionately fighting for our clients’ rights. We invite you to inquire about our performance through client references, or you can explore the wealth of positive reviews available online. With offices conveniently located in Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Orange, Oxnard, Riverside, and San Bernardino, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Cathedral City. Our employment lawyers are poised to offer world-class services and top-tier representation to the residents of Cathedral City. When confronted with complex legal matters, you can trust us to provide the seasoned and experienced counsel necessary to navigate your case successfully.

We Can Help Cathedral City Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal. 4th 640, 957 P.2d 1333 (1998)

A former employee brought an action against the employer and its principal owner and shareholder, alleging discrimination based on medical condition in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The Superior Court, granted summary judgment motion by principal owner and shareholder. The employee appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed and both the principal owner and shareholder petitioned for review. The Supreme Court held, as a matter of first impression, that: (1) supervisors may not be sued individually under FEHA for alleged discriminatory acts, and (2) supervisors may not be sued individually for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. In reaching this conclusion, the Court thoroughly examined the difference between discrimination claims and harassment claims under the FEHA: “Although the FEHA prohibits harassment as well as discrimination, it treats them differently. It prohibits “an employer … or any other person ” from harassing an employee. (§ 12940, subd. (h)(1), italics added.) It defines a “person” as including “one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, limited liability companies, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, and receivers or other fiduciaries.” (§ 12925, subd. (d).) The FEHA, however, prohibits only “an employer” from engaging in improper discrimination. (§ 12940, subd. (a).) In this connection, it defines an “employer” as including “any person regularly employing five or more persons, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly….” (§ 12926, subd. (d).) With regard to harassment, it defines an “employer” as “any person regularly employing one or more persons, or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly….” (§ 12940, subd. (h)(3)(A).)… “the Legislature’s differential treatment of harassment and discrimination is based on the fundamental distinction between harassment as a type of conduct not necessary to a supervisor’s job performance, and business or personnel management decisions—which might later be considered discriminatory—as inherently necessary to performance of a supervisor’s job.” (Janken, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at pp. 62–63, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 741.) The court noted that “harassment consists of a type of conduct not necessary for performance of a supervisory job. Instead, harassment consists of conduct outside the scope of necessary job performance, conduct presumably engaged in for personal gratification, because of meanness or bigotry, or for other personal motives. Harassment is not conduct of a type necessary for management of the employer’s business or performance of the supervisory employee’s job… Discrimination claims, by contrast, arise out of the performance of necessary personnel management duties. While harassment is not a type of conduct necessary to personnel management, making decisions is a type of conduct essential to personnel management. While it is possible to avoid making personnel decisions on a prohibited discriminatory basis, it is not possible either to avoid making personnel decisions or to prevent the claim that those decisions were discriminatory.” Reno at 644-46.

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