Cypress Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to fight for the rights of workers in Cypress dealing with discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace. The firm also stands ready to provide small businesses in Cypress 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 Cypress, California

Cypress is a city located in Orange County.  It is home to more than 50,000 residents.  It covers a little over six square miles and encompasses the following zip code: 90630. Cypress originally was nicknamed “Waterville” due to the preponderance of artesian wells in the area but was incorporated under the name Dairy City in 1956 by local dairy farmers as a means of staving off developers and to preserve their dairies, much like the then-neighboring cities of Dairy Valley in Cerritos and Dairyland in La Palma. After World War II, however, the land became too valuable for farming or ranching, and the dairies gradually sold out to housing developers during the 1960s, so that by the 1970s no dairies remained. Many of the dairymen moved their operations to Chino, where development is once again pushing them out of the area. In 1957 local residents voted to change the name of “Dairy City” to “Cypress”. The name was taken from Cypress Elementary School (originally built in 1895) which took its name from the Cypress trees planted to protect the schoolhouse from the seasonal Santa Ana winds. With offices in Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Cypress. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Cypress.

Do You Seek The Best Cypress Employment Law Attorney?

In Cypress, securing the services of the right labor lawyer can be a challenging endeavor. The legal landscape here boasts a multitude of law firms, each with its distinctive approach and philosophy. It’s important to recognize that not every employee attorney in Cypress will be a suitable match for every case. Preferences and strategies among employment lawyers can vary significantly, with some opting for quick, straightforward, low-value settlements, while others are committed to engaging in a more protracted battle that ultimately leads to a resolution reflecting the full value of the case.

If you conduct an internet search for “employment lawyer Cypress” or “wrongful termination attorney in Cypress,” you’ll likely be inundated with paid advertisements from lawyers who are content with the easier route. However, at the Akopyan Law Firm in Cypress, California, our unwavering goal is clear: to secure the best possible outcome for each client, regardless of the scale of the challenge before us.

Our dedication to delivering high-quality legal work on every case means that we deliberately limit our practice to ensure that every client receives the personalized attention and care they deserve. Every employee who becomes a part of our client family is treated with the utmost respect and care. We take pride in offering top-notch, personalized service and invite you to explore the testimonials of our clients to see their firsthand experiences.

Our bonds with our clients often extend beyond the life of the case itself, as we are committed to nurturing lasting relationships. The exceptional results achieved by our Cypress employment lawyers are a testament to our passion and unwavering advocacy for our clients.

If you’re in search of employment lawyers in Cypress who will relentlessly champion your cause, we encourage you to reach out to us today for a complimentary case evaluation. Your legal journey begins here, and we’re here to stand by your side every step of the way.

We Can Help Cypress Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

Hope v. California Youth Auth., (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 577

A gay former employee of California Youth Authority (CYA) filed suit against CYA, alleging sexual orientation harassment in violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Superior Court entered judgment on jury verdict awarding employee economic and noneconomic damages. CYA appealed. The employer argued on appeal that substantial evidence did not support the jury’s determination of liability or the award of damages. The Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the judgment.  In its opinion the Court discussed the law regarding hostile work environment harassment: “A]n employee claiming harassment based upon a hostile work environment must demonstrate that the conduct complained of was severe enough or sufficiently pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a work environment that qualifies as hostile or abusive to employees because of their [sexual orientation]…. The working environment must be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances: ‘[W]hether an environment is “hostile” or “abusive” can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.’ ” (Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 462, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 797, 115 P.3d 77, citations omitted, italics added.) “In determining what constitutes ‘sufficiently pervasive’ harassment, the courts have held that acts of harassment cannot be occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial, rather the plaintiff must show a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine or a generalized nature.” (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 610, 262 Cal.Rptr. 842.) The harassment must satisfy an objective and a subjective standard. “ ‘[T]he objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, considering “all the circumstances.” …’ ” (Miller v. Department of Corrections, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 462, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 797, 115 P.3d 77.) And, subjectively, an employee must perceive the work environment to be hostile. (See Rieger v. Arnold (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 451, 460, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 295.) Put another way, “[t]he plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s conduct would have interfered with a reasonable **164 employee’s work performance and would have seriously affected the psychological well-being of a reasonable employee and that [he] was actually offended.” (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at pp. 609–610, 262 Cal.Rptr. 842, fn. omitted.) Further, “[t]he FEHA imposes two standards of employer liability for sexual [orientation] harassment, depending on whether the person engaging in the harassment is the victim’s supervisor or a nonsupervisory coemployee. The employer is liable for harassment by a nonsupervisory employee only if the employer (a) knew or should have known of the harassing conduct and (b) failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. (§ 12940, subd. (j)(1).) This is a negligence standard…. Because the FEHA imposes this negligence standard only for harassment ‘by an employee other than an *589 agent or supervisor’ (§ 12940, subd. (j)(1)), by implication the FEHA makes the employer strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor.” (State Dept. of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1040–1041, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 441, 79 P.3d 556, citation omitted.) Hope, at 588–89

 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
$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
$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