Covina Employment Attorneys

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

Covina, California

Covina is a city founded in 1882, in the San Gabriel Valley and is home to more than 50,000 residents.  It covers approximately eight square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 91722, 91732, and 91724.  Covina is centered in the midst of Interstate freeways 10, 210, and 605, and State Route 57.  Special attention has been given to preserving Covina’s old-town Downtown feel. The Downtown Specific Plan was developed to promote pedestrian and transit-oriented development while honoring its downtown historical character. Visitors enjoy “mom and pop” shops and can spend a nostalgic day in downtown dining in fine eateries, visiting vintage clothing stores, hobby shops, antique stores, and ice cream shops. The renovated Center for the Performing Arts is a $10 million facility that serves as the architectural and entertainment cornerstone of Downtown. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles and has offices in Riverside, Orange, and San Bernardino all just minutes away from Covina.  Thus, our employment lawyers stand ready to serve employees and employers in Covina with all their employment law needs.

Ways To Find The Best Employment Lawyers in Covina

Due to its central location, Covina offers its residents a wide array of legal professionals to choose from. “Covina boasts a plethora of lawyers and law firms, all vying to serve the needs of its residents,” remarked one resident. However, the abundance of legal options can sometimes feel overwhelming, with some attorneys even appearing eager enough to break down your door and pitch their services right in your living room.

For both employers and employees in Covina navigating complex legal issues, particularly those involving employment law, the primary challenge lies in pinpointing the perfect attorney for their unique situation. This quest can become even more daunting in the face of the ceaseless barrage of attention-grabbing radio advertisements and the sight of flashy posters adorning billboards, buses, and street benches throughout the city.

Many individuals turn to online searches in hopes of finding the right legal representation. Yet, such searches for keywords like “Covina employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Covina” can yield a slew of results dominated by paid advertisements from billboard lawyers. While billboard lawyers may excel in handling specific cases, there are instances where legal matters demand nothing short of top-tier representation from seasoned counsel. Making the right choice can be challenging, but it’s a crucial decision that can profoundly impact the outcome of your case.

Each attorney at the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. has almost two decades of experience.  Our lawyers have a proven track record of success for both employers and employees. The firm’s approach is to focus on quality, not quantity.  Our lawyers prefer to spend our time in the courtroom fighting for their clients’ rights, instead of the recording studio recording catchy radio ads.  We don’t want you to take our word for it; We will gladly provide client references upon request.  You can of course also check out our reviews online.  With offices just minutes away from Covina, we stand ready to provide legal representation of the highest caliber to residents of Covina.

We Stand Ready To Fight For The Rights Of Covina Residents In Cases Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993) 510 U.S. 17

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of what constitutes a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The key facts of the case are as follows: Teresa Harris, the plaintiff, was an employee of Forklift Systems, Inc. She alleged that her supervisor, Charles Hardy, had engaged in offensive and inappropriate behavior, including making derogatory comments about her appearance and gender. Harris claimed that Hardy’s behavior created a hostile work environment and that she was subjected to verbal abuse and harassment. Harris did not suffer any physical harm or economic loss as a result of the alleged harassment. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the behavior described by Harris constituted a hostile work environment under Title VII and, therefore, whether she had a valid claim of sexual harassment. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that a claim of hostile work environment does not require the victim to suffer severe psychological or physical harm. Instead, the Court emphasized that the standard is whether the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. The Court ruled that the behavior alleged by Harris, while offensive and inappropriate, did not rise to the level of creating a hostile work environment under Title VII. However, the Court’s decision clarified that Title VII does not condone or tolerate such behavior and emphasized that it is essential for employers to maintain a workplace free from discriminatory intimidation and insult. This case is significant because it clarified the standard for a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, which has had a lasting impact on sexual harassment cases in the workplace. It made it clear that the behavior need not be of the most egregious nature to be considered legally actionable under Title VII.