Costa Mesa Employment Attorneys

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

Costa Mesa, California

Costa Mesa is a city located the heart of Orange County.  Costa Mesa is home to more than 110,000 residents.  It covers approximately sixteen square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 92626, 92627, and 92628.

The City of Costa Mesa is one of California’s most eclectic and vibrant cities. The city is home to South Coast Plaza, one of the nation’s largest shopping centers, and the world-class Segerstrom Center for the Arts and South Coast Repertory theater. Costa Mesa is also the capitol of the action sports industry and the headquarters for companies such as Hurley International, Volcom, RVCA and Vans. The city has a diverse dining scene and is home to The Lab and The Camp, two counter-culture retail developments, and the SoCo Collection, a cutting edge, environmentally friendly shopping center.

Since its incorporation in 1953, Costa Mesa has evolved from a semi-rural farming community of 15,000 to a city with robust local economy that generates tax revenues of about $118 million annually. Costa Mesa offers 28 parks, two municipal golf courses, 20 public schools and three libraries. Orange Coast College, Coastline Community College and Vanguard University have their campuses in Costa Mesa. The Orange County Fair and Event Center is also within the city limits.  Costa Mesa residents enjoy a mild Southern California climate. The City’s location provides easy access to many of Southern California’s major attractions, including beaches, mountain areas, high and low deserts, Disneyland, Knott’s Berry Farm, Palm Springs and Los Angeles.

With offices in San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Riverside, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Costa Mesa. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Costa Mesa.

Ten Things You Can Do To Find The Best Wrongful Termination Lawyers in Costa Mesa

We Are Ready to Help Folks In Costa Mesa With Cases Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders (2004) 542 U.S. 129

Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the circumstances under which an employee’s claim of constructive discharge can be considered a viable claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The key facts of the case are as follows: Nancy Drew Suders was a Pennsylvania State Police dispatcher who alleged that she had been sexually harassed by two of her supervisors. Suders claimed that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and that her supervisors’ actions had created intolerable working conditions. After her complaints to her supervisors and superiors went unanswered, Suders resigned from her position. She argued that she had been constructively discharged due to the hostile work environment. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Suders’ resignation constituted a constructive discharge under Title VII, allowing her to pursue a claim of unlawful employment discrimination. In its decision, the Supreme Court clarified the standards for constructive discharge claims. The Court held that for a constructive discharge claim to be viable under Title VII, two elements must be met: 1. The working conditions must have become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to resign. 2. The employer must have actual or constructive knowledge of the intolerable conditions and failed to take remedial action. In Suders’ case, the Court found that the first element was satisfied because the working conditions were indeed intolerable. However, the Court also found that the second element was not met because the Pennsylvania State Police had made reasonable efforts to prevent and promptly correct any harassing behavior. Therefore, Suders’ constructive discharge claim was not upheld. This case is significant because it established a framework for evaluating constructive discharge claims under Title VII, emphasizing the importance of both intolerable working conditions and the employer’s efforts to address them. It bears noting that the analysis under state law is different.