Diamond Bar Employment Attorneys

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

Diamond Bar, California

Diamond Bar is in the San Gabriel Valley and is home to more than 60,000 residents. It covers approximately fifteen square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 91765, and 91789. Diamond Bar is named after the “diamond over a bar” branding iron registered in 1918 by ranch owner Frederic E. Lewis (1884–1963). In 1840, José de la Luz Linares received the 4,340-acre Mexican land grant Rancho Los Nogales (Ranch of the Walnut Trees) from Governor Juan Alvarado. The land grant included Brea Canyon and the eastern Walnut Valley. Linares died in 1847, and his widow sold a part of the ranch to Ricardo Vejar for $100 in merchandise, 100 calves, and the assumption of her late husband’s debts. Vejar also owned the Rancho San Jose to the east, and acquired the rest of Rancho Nogales over the next 10 years. However, Vejar’s luck did not last that long. As time wore on – and particularly as the United States government took over California – Rancho Los Nogales was divided and sold into multiple land ranches, the largest of which was the Diamond Bar Ranch. At the time, it was one of the largest working cattle ranches in the western U.S. The entire Diamond Bar Ranch was acquired by the Transamerica Corporation in the 1950s for the purpose of developing one of the nation’s first master-planned communities. Transamerica gave the Diamond Bar name to its new community and incorporated the ranch’s familiar diamond and bar cattle brand into various logos (many of which are still in use today). The first houses in this development were built in 1959, adjacent to the future location of the Pomona Freeway, which was built through the area ten years later. The town’s development and population grew extremely quickly after that. Transamerica oversaw all development of the community through the 1960s. The Transamerica Corporation divested itself of all its real estate ventures in the 1970s and 1980s. As a result, the Diamond Bar project was sold to multiple developers and much of its initial master plan was not implemented during the latter half of its development in the 1980s. The City of Diamond Bar was incorporated on April 18, 1989. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles and has offices in Riverside, Orange, and San Bernardino which are just minutes away from Diamond Bar. Thus, our employment lawyers stand ready to serve employees and employers in Diamond Bar with all their employment law needs.

Finding The Best Employment Lawyers in Diamond Bar Has Never Been Easier

Diamond Bar, with its central location, presents its residents with a plethora of choices when it comes to legal representation. The city boasts numerous lawyers and law firms, all offering their services to the community. In fact, some are so zealous in their pursuit of clients that they might as well break down your door and step right into your living room to make their sales pitch. For employers and employees in Diamond Bar dealing with substantial legal issues, especially those rooted in employment law, the challenge lies in discerning which lawyer is the ideal choice for their specific situation. This quest becomes even more perplexing amidst the constant deluge of attention-grabbing radio ads and the presence of cheesy posters adorning billboards, buses, and street benches throughout the city. While most individuals turn to online searches for solutions, searching for phrases like “Diamond Bar employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Diamond Bar” can often lead to a search results page brimming with paid advertisements from billboard lawyers. While billboard lawyers may excel in certain cases, there are instances where the complexity of the matter necessitates the involvement of seasoned, high-caliber legal counsel. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each of our attorneys boasts nearly two decades of invaluable experience, backed by a distinguished track record of success representing both employers and employees. Our firm’s distinguishing characteristic lies in our unwavering commitment to quality over quantity. Our attorneys prefer to invest their time in the courtroom, vigorously advocating for our clients’ rights, rather than in a recording studio crafting catchy radio ads. We take immense pride in our work and invite you to request client references or explore our online reviews to see our track record firsthand. With offices located just minutes away from Diamond Bar, we are poised and prepared to provide residents with legal representation of the utmost excellence. When you choose the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., you’re selecting more than just legal expertise; you’re embracing a dedication to delivering the highest standards of service. Your legal needs are our priority, and we’re poised to be your trusted advocates. If you’re seeking legal representation that prioritizes quality and experience, we encourage you to reach out to us today for exceptional counsel and support.

Diamond Bar Residents Are Welcomed To Call Us To Discuss Cases Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, (1998) 524 U.S. 775, 775–79

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of employer liability for sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This case was important decision under federal law, but a fact which cannot be overemphasized is that state law substantially differs from federal law on the topic of this case. The case’s key facts are as follows: Two lifeguards, Beth Ann Faragher and Raquel Nelson, employed by the City of Boca Raton, Florida, alleged that they were subjected to sexual harassment by their supervisors, Bill Terry and David Silverman. Faragher and Nelson claimed that Terry and Silverman had made unwelcome sexual advances and comments, creating a hostile work environment. The lifeguards also asserted that the City of Boca Raton was liable for the supervisors’ actions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the City of Boca Raton could be held vicariously liable for the actions of its supervisors, Terry and Silverman. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that employers can be held vicariously liable for sexual harassment by their employees, including supervisors, if the harassment culminates in a tangible employment action. However, if no tangible employment action results from the harassment, the employer can raise an affirmative defense to avoid liability. The affirmative defense consists of two elements: 1. The employer must have exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexually harassing behavior. 2. The plaintiff employee must have unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective measures provided by the employer. In the case of Faragher and Nelson, the Court found that the City of Boca Raton had exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct sexual harassment through its anti-harassment policies. However, the Court did not make a final determination on the second element, remanding the case to a lower court to assess whether the lifeguards had unreasonably failed to take advantage of the employer’s measures. This case has had a significant impact on the legal standards for employer liability in sexual harassment cases and has shaped how employers are expected to address and prevent workplace harassment.

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

$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: 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

MORE RESULTS