Claremont Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to fight for the rights of workers in Claremont dealing with discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace. The firm also stands ready to provide small businesses in Claremont economical and efficient solutions to problems involving employment law.  Our substantial experience in approaching employment disputes from both sides gives us rare insight into the mindset of the opponent, which truly goes a long way to achieving the best possible outcome.

About Claremont, California

Claremont is a City in Los Angeles County, in east San Gabriel Valley.

Claremont has a rich history.  Much of what Claremont is today is the direct result of actions taken by the community’s founders more than 100 years ago. Trees planted at the turn of the century now compete with nearby mountain peaks for dominance of the local skyline. The Claremont Colleges have become some of the nation’s most highly respected educational and cultural institutions. The historic central core remains a vital residential and retail district, one of the last true “downtowns” in the region.

In 1771, as the Spanish period in California began, Mission San Gabriel was founded, stretching from the San Bernardino Mountains to San Pedro Bay. Claremont was part of this vast tract, and many of the indigenous people (Tongva/Gabrielinos) were employed as shepherds for the padres. After the missions were secularized by the Mexican government in 1834, most of the land within the present city limits became part of the Rancho San Jose owned by Ricardo Vejar and Don Ygnacio Palomares. Ygnacio’s sister, Maria Barbara, lived with her husband and family in an adobe house in the area now known as Memorial Park. The Tongva-Gabrielinos  continued to work for the Spanish settlers until smallpox took a heavy toll on the indigenous population in 1862 and 1873. By 1883, the few remaining Tongva-Gabrielinos had left the area.

Jedediah Smith, the first European man to enter California overland, passed through the Claremont region in 1826. W. T. “Tooch” Martin, the first anglo-European resident of Claremont, filed a claim on 156 acres near Indian Hill Boulevard in 1871. Martin lived by hunting game and keeping bees but eventually moved on as the population grew around him. The Santa Fe Railroad provided the impetus for the creation of a community named Claremont in January 1887. It was one of about 30 town sites laid out between San Bernardino and Los Angeles in anticipation of a population explosion resulting from the arrival of the railroad. However, the real estate boom was short-lived. Claremont would have become one of a long list of local railroad “ghost towns” if not for the decision of the local land company to transfer its Hotel Claremont and 260 vacant lots to the recently-founded Pomona College in 1888.

The founders of Pomona College wanted to establish a school of “the New England style,” and the community that grew up around it also reflected the founders’ New England heritage. Even the form of local government they used, the Town Meeting, was brought with them from their hometowns in the East. Both the citizen involvement and the volunteerism on which the town meeting form of government is based continue to be hallmarks of Claremont today.

Beginning in 1904, there was talk of incorporating as a city. Proponents didn’t want to rely on Los Angeles County for services, while opponents warned the community’s weak tax base would result in bankruptcy in less than a year. Finally, after much debate, an election on the incorporation question was held on September 23, 1907. Nearly 95 percent of Claremont’s 131 eligible voters went to the polls. Incorporation was approved by a vote of 73 to 49, and the City of Claremont was officially incorporated on October 3, 1907.

At the same time the colleges were growing and expanding, so was the local citrus industry. Citrus ranches spread out across all the foothill communities. Claremont growers established one of the earliest citrus cooperatives for marketing and shipping citrus fruit, a model that led to the organization of the Sunkist cooperative. At its height, the industry supported four citrus packing houses, an ice house, and a precooling plant along the railroad tracks in Claremont.

Labor for the citrus industry was predominately provided by Mexican-Americans, often new arrivals from Mexico. Men served as pickers while women worked in the packing houses. By 1920, two Mexican-American neighborhoods had developed in Claremont: one in the area of El Barrio Park and the other near the packing houses west of Indian Hill Boulevard and north of the railroad. In addition to supporting the thriving citrus industry, Mexican labor contributed greatly to the early construction of the Claremont Colleges, including skilled crafting of many stone structures and ornamental features.

Citrus continued to flourish in the area until after the Second World War. That’s when the pressure for residential development caused many growers to sell their land for housing tracts. The opening of the San Bernardino Freeway in 1954 also made it much easier for people not associated with citrus or the Colleges to live in Claremont. The city, which covered about 3.5 square miles at its incorporation in 1907, now covers more than 13 square miles with a population of over 34,000 residents. It covers the following zip code: 91711.

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles and has offices in Bakersfield, Oxnard, Temecula, Rancho Cucamonga, Costa Mesa, Culver City, and San Diego which are just minutes away from Claremont.  Thus, our lawyers stand ready to serve employees and employers in Claremont with all their employment law needs.

Your Search For The Best Claremont Employment Attorneys Is Over

Finding the right labor lawyer in Claremont is not always easy. There are many different firms to choose from but the approach of each firm varies significantly.  Not every employee attorney in Claremont 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. An internet search for “Claremont employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Claremont” will likely produce paid advertisements from tons of lawyers who would be happy to take the easy approach. The goal of the Claremont, 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 Claremont employment lawyers fight passionately for our clients as confirmed by the excellent results they have achieved. If you are looking for employment lawyers in Claremont, call us today for a complimentary case evaluation.

We Can Help Claremont Residents With All Sorts of Employment Disputes, Including Those Which Involve:

Featured Article:

  • wrongful termination

Wrongful Termination Due to Medical Conditions: California Employee Rights Guide

📌 Key Takeaways The Timing of Termination Can Be Telling: When an employee is terminated shortly after disclosing a qualifying medical condition or requesting accommodations, this timing may suggest a causal connection relevant under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Employer Refusal to Engage in the Interactive Process Could Reflect Non-Compliance: An employer’s failure to discuss or explore reasonable accommodations after receiving medical documentation may not meet FEHA procedural obligations and could indicate statutory exposure. Patterns of Unequal or Retaliatory Conduct May Warrant Further Review: Disciplinary action, workload changes, or denial of flexibility following a medical disclosure may help establish a pattern inconsistent with legal protections, especially when supported by documentation. Qualified Legal Review Is Essential in Medical Termination Cases: Statutory protections vary based on individual facts, medical condition, and documentation. Consulting with a California employment attorney is essential when wrongful termination is suspected. The article offers an overview of potential statutory violation indicators tied to wrongful termination involving medical conditions. This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Individual rights vary by circumstance. Consultation with a qualified attorney is strongly recommended. Employees managing documented medical conditions may face complex challenges in the workplace, particularly when termination follows medical disclosure or a request for accommodations. Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employees may be protected against adverse employment actions that arise due to qualifying medical conditions. This article provides informational insight into statutory violation indicators under California law. It does not provide legal advice or assessment tools. Individual legal outcomes depend on context, documentation, and statutory interpretation. Statutory Obligations Related to Medical Conditions Under FEHA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees with medical conditions that qualify as disabilities. Covered conditions may include, but are not limited to: Cancer Epilepsy HIV/AIDS Diabetes Autoimmune disorders Multiple sclerosis Migraines and seizure-related conditions If a condition substantially limits one or more major life activities—such as walking, working, immune function, or neurological processes—statutory protections may apply. Statutory obligations may include: Reasonable accommodations, unless they impose undue hardship to the employer A good-faith interactive process to explore those accommodations Prohibition of retaliation related to medical disclosures or accommodation requests FEHA generally applies to California employers with five or more employees and may provide broader protection than the federal ADA. Employer Conduct That Might Indicate Statutory Non-Compliance When medical information is shared in good faith, employers are expected to act in accordance with state and federal obligations. Certain behaviors may suggest non-compliance, particularly when accompanied by a lack of documentation or explanation. Potential red flag patterns include: Termination shortly after disclosure of medical condition An employee is terminated within days or weeks of disclosing a serious medical condition or requesting an accommodation. The timing may suggest a causal connection. Refusal to engage in the interactive process Employers who decline to discuss possible accommodations or refuse to acknowledge documentation may not be meeting procedural requirements. Negative treatment after a request... Read more

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: Whistleblower Retaliation
$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: Pregnancy Discrimination
$175 ThousandEmployment: Whistleblower Retaliation
$175 ThousandEmployment: Medical Leave Retaliation
$174 ThousandEmployment: Wage and Hour
$167 ThousandEmployment: Wage and Hour
$165 ThousandEmployment: Wage & Hour Violations
$160 ThousandEmployment: Unpaid Wages
$158 ThousandBreach of Contract
$150 ThousandEmployment: Reverse Race Discrimination
$130 ThousandEmployment: Race Discrimination
$125 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$125 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$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: Associational Disability Discrimination
$100 ThousandEmployment: Religious Discrimination
$100 ThousandEmployment: Failure to Accommodate
$100 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Bicycle Collision
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Pedestrian Collision