Fountain Valley Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. is prepared to vigorously advocate for the rights of workers in Fountain Valley who are confronted with workplace issues such as discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other unlawful conduct. Our firm is equally equipped to offer small businesses in Fountain Valley cost-effective and streamlined solutions to address employment law-related challenges. Our extensive experience in handling employment disputes from both the employee and employer perspectives provides us with valuable insights into the mindset of the opposing party, a perspective that greatly contributes to achieving the optimal resolution.

About Fountain Valley, California

Fountain Valley is a city located in Orange County.  It is home to more than 57,000 residents.  It covers approximately nine square miles and encompasses the following zip codes: 92708, and 92728.   Through the years, Fountain Valley, like California, has had a rich and colorful history under the control of Spain, Mexico, and after the Mexican War. In the early settlement of Fountain Valley, this area was inundated by swamps. From 1880’s to the early 1900’s the area of Fountain Valley and adjoining communities was called “Gospel Swamps” by the residents. The name “Fountain Valley” originated from the many artesian wells and the great supply of water.  Through the efforts of the early settlers up through the 1890’s, drainage canals were constructed to drain the land to make it usable. Early pioneers grew field crops which included sugar beets, beans, barley and wheat. Cattle grazed on portions of land not being used for growing crops. Primarily, Fountain Valley remained a field crop area, producing beans and sugar beets, until the middle 1930’s when some large land owners began to sell off portions of land. From 1930 until the present time the agricultural emphasis has been on truck crops, such as strawberries, cabbage, cauliflower, asparagus, corn, beans, lettuce carrots, spinach, onions, tomatoes, broccoli, parsley, peas, and squash. The City of Fountain Valley was incorporated in 1957 as the 21 city in the County of Orange. Since its incorporation, Fountain Valley has established itself both locally and nationally as a forward-looking community dedicated to improving the quality of life for its citizens. The fantastic growth rate which Fountain Valley experienced in the 1960s, which could easily have wreaked havoc with the planning of most cities, took place within the framework of a Master Plan adopted before any developments had began. Unlike many communities, Fountain Valley’s Master Plan did not have to play “catch up” with existing developments. It is for this reason Fountain Valley has often been referred to as Orange County’s best-planned community. With offices in Orange, Burbank, and Riverside the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Fountain Valley. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Fountain Valley.

Are You Looking For The Best Fountain Valley Employment Attorneys?

Securing the right labor lawyer in Fountain Valley can indeed be a challenging endeavor. The legal landscape here is diverse, with numerous firms to choose from, each with its unique approach and philosophy. It’s important to recognize that not every employee attorney in Fountain Valley will be the ideal match for every case, as preferences and strategies can vary significantly.

While some employment lawyers may lean toward swift and straightforward low-value settlements, others are inclined to engage in a more protracted legal battle, aiming for a resolution that truly reflects the full value of the case. An online search for “employment lawyer Fountain Valley” or “wrongful termination attorney in Fountain Valley” often results in an array of paid advertisements from lawyers willing to opt for the easier route.

At the Akopyan Law Firm in Fountain Valley, California, our unwavering goal is to secure the best possible outcome for each client, regardless of the magnitude of the challenge. Our commitment to delivering high-quality work on every case leads us to selectively limit our practice, ensuring that every client receives the personalized attention and outstanding representation they deserve. To us, every employee who becomes our client is embraced as part of our extended family.

While we take immense pride in offering top-tier, personalized service, we invite you to explore what our clients have to say and examine our online reviews to witness the satisfaction of our past clients. The relationships we cultivate with our clients often extend beyond the life of the case itself, underscoring our commitment to lasting connections.

Our Fountain Valley employment lawyers passionately advocate for our clients, as substantiated by the excellent results they’ve achieved. If you are in search of employment lawyers in Fountain Valley who will fervently champion your cause and prioritize quality and commitment over quantity, we encourage you to reach out to us today for a complimentary case evaluation. Your legal journey begins here, and we stand ready to support you every step of the way.

Fountain Valley Residents Can Call Us With Problems Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Pantoja v. Anton, 198 Cal. App. 4th 87, 92–93, 129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 384, 388–89 (2011)

In this employment discrimination case, the Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether the trial court erred in not allowing the jury to hear “me too” evidence, that is, evidence of the employer’s alleged gender bias in the form of harassing activity against women employees other than the plaintiff.  At trial, the “me too” evidence related to harassing activity that occurred outside the plaintiff’s presence and at times other than when plaintiff was employed. At issue was whether the court properly excluded this evidence as propensity or character evidence under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a), or whether it should have been admitted as evidence of a discriminatory or biased intent or motive under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b).  The appellate court concluded that the evidence should have been admitted and the failure to do so was prejudicial. Consequently, the judgment entered upon the jury’s defense verdict was reversed. In doing so, the Court of Appeal fully recognized and agreed that the FEHA is not a civility code and is “not designed to rid the workplace of vulgarity.”  Attempting to impose a civility code, human nature being what it is, would be an exercise in futility. The plaintiff’s evidence in the Pantoja case, however, if believed, would be more than “vulgarity” in the workplace.  Another issue was whether the court correctly instructed the jury with language from the Supreme Court’s opinion in Lyle, supra, 38 Cal.4th at page 278, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 132 P.3d 211. The Court of Appeal concluded that the instruction given was a correct statement of the law. In the context of this case, however, giving it without other clarifying instructions that are also consistent with the principles and teaching of Lyle was error.  In addition, the Court of Appeal concluded that, by granting defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s supervisor’s use of the word “Mexicans,” and rejecting proffers of similar evidence during trial, the court in effect improperly granted relief equivalent to summary adjudication against plaintiff’s claim alleging racial discrimination. Finally, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded evidence offered to rehabilitate one of plaintiff’s witnesses after defendants impeached that witness.

 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: Failure to Accommodate
$100 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Bicycle Collision
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Pedestrian Collision