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 Claims Against Southern California Family-Owned Small Businesses After Protected Complaints: Why Timing and Motive Become Central
📌 Key Takeaways Wrongful termination claims after protected complaints may put timing, motive, records, and witness credibility at the center of litigation for family-owned California employers. Timing Drives Scrutiny: When termination follows alleged protected activity, proximity may become part of a plaintiff’s causation theory.Motive Shapes Exposure: A legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason may still face scrutiny if the evidentiary record appears inconsistent or incomplete.Records Carry Weight: Personnel records, messages, schedules, payroll entries, and complaint records may shape how the termination decision is evaluated.Small Teams Matter: Direct owner involvement and informal communication may make owners, managers, and supervisors central witnesses in the litigation narrative.Claims Can Expand: One termination dispute may broaden into retaliation, wage and hour, accommodation, leave, harassment, or whistleblower-related allegations. For Southern California family-owned employers, defensibility often depends on whether timing, motive, documentation, and credibility hold together under scrutiny. When a family-owned Southern California business faces a wrongful termination claim after an employee’s protected complaint, the dispute often turns on more than the final termination decision. The employee may assert that termination followed protected activity, while the business may maintain that the decision reflected attendance, performance, misconduct, restructuring, or legitimate operational needs. Once litigation begins, timing, motive, the evidentiary record, and witness credibility may become central. Why Timing Becomes a Litigation Issue After a Protected Complaint In many wrongful termination disputes, the plaintiff focuses on chronology. A protected complaint may be followed by discipline, reduced hours, schedule changes, exclusion from certain shifts, altered duties, or termination. That sequence does not, by itself, establish liability. It may, however, become part of an allegation that a causal connection existed between protected activity and a later employment decision. For a family-owned small business, routine operational timing may be scrutinized when an employment decision follows a protected complaint. An owner may adjust staffing because customer demand changed. A supervisor may discipline an employee because attendance affected coverage. A general manager may terminate employment after repeated performance concerns. If those decisions occur close in time to alleged protected activity, proximity may become part of a retaliation theory. Under California SB 497, if an adverse action occurs within 90 days of certain protected complaints, a statutory presumption of retaliation may automatically shift the burden to the employer to articulate a legitimate reason. Under California law, generally, at-will employment principles may apply to many employment relationships. At-will employment, however, does not eliminate claims based on an allegedly unlawful motive. For instance, under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Labor Code Section 1102.5, employers are strictly prohibited from retaliating against employees who report reasonably suspected violations of the law. Consequently, 'at-will' status offers no defense against these specific statutory protections. A trier of fact, whether a judge, jury, or agency, may evaluate whether the employer’s explanation remains consistent across personnel records, emails, text messages, payroll documents, schedules, and manager communications. Why Motive Is Often Disputed Motive becomes central because the plaintiff may claim that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual. The business may view the termination... Read more
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results