Fullerton Employment Attorneysv

The trial attorneys at the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. are prepared to advocate for the rights and interests of both employers and employees in Fullerton, California. Whether you are an employer seeking legal guidance or an employee facing workplace challenges, our experienced team is ready to provide comprehensive legal representation tailored to your specific needs.

Fullerton, California

Fullerton is a city located in Orange County.  Fullerton is home to more than 140,000 residents.  It covers approximately twenty three square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 92831, 92832, 92833, 92834, 92835, 92836, 92837, and 92838.  The City has a rich history.  In 1837, the Fullerton area became part of Rancho San Juan Cajón de Santa Ana, granted to Juan Pacifico Ontiveros, a Spanish soldier. Ontiveros began selling parcels of the Rancho to migrant Americans settling and developing California in the aftermath of the 1849 Gold Rush, including Abel Stearns. In the 1860s, Stearns sold in turn to Domingo Bastanchury, a Basque shepherd. In 1886, while in the area on a duck hunting vacation, brothers George and Edward Amerige, heard rumors that the California Central Railroad, a subsidiary of the Santa Fe Railway, was looking for land. Sensing opportunity, they arranged to buy 430 acres north of Anaheim for approximately $68,000. They then began negotiations with George H. Fullerton, president of the Pacific Land and Improvement Company, also a Santa Fe subsidiary. They offered free right-of-way and half interest in the land to the railroad if Fullerton’s survey were revised to include the proposed town site, and on July 5, 1887, Edward Amerige formally staked his claim at what is now the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Commonwealth Avenue. In 1894, Charles Chapman purchased an orange orchard in eastern Fullerton. The Valencia variety of oranges he promoted from his Santa Ysabel Ranch, well suited to the local climate, proved a boon to producers; Fullerton boasted more orange groves than any other municipality in the United States. Cultivation of walnuts and avocados also flourished, and the Western railroad town became an agricultural center. Fullerton was incorporated in 1904, but not officially recognized until 1907, due to conflicts at that time.

Significant public works projects from the interwar period were constructed during this period.  Through the mid-1900s, the economy shifted toward food processing rather than food production, as well as manufacturing; southeastern Fullerton became an industrial center. Although Fullerton, like other Southern California cities, had experienced an expansion of population due to housing development, this increased by an order of magnitude during the post war years. Fullerton’s population soared after World War II as American veterans migrated to California, bought housing in the land development which destroyed the surrounding farming and park areas, and in particular after the construction of Interstate 5 and development in neighboring Anaheim.

To serve the growing population, the California State Legislature authorized Orange County State College in 1957, which began operating out of Fullerton high schools in 1959. In 1963, it moved to its present campus on State College Boulevard, and later, after several name-changes, was finally redesignated California State University, Fullerton.  Manufacturing growth leveled off as ever-soaring property prices, increasing environmental regulation, traffic, and other pressures increased. By the late 20th century the city had lost much of its rural character in favor of suburban housing tracts and shopping centers.

Fullerton is renowned for its unique mix of residential, business, educational and cultural environments.

Tips for Secuing Representation From The Best Employment Lawyers in Fullerton

Fullerton, due to its location and vibrant community, offers its residents a multitude of options when it comes to legal representation. The city is home to numerous lawyers and law firms, all vying to offer their services to local residents. However, in today’s digital age, an online search for “Fullerton employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Fullerton” often yields a barrage of paid advertisements from lawyers representing various specialties.

Selecting the right attorney, one with the necessary skills and experience, can indeed be a daunting task when the decision is largely influenced by a paid internet advertisement. For individuals grappling with serious legal issues, particularly those rooted in employment law, the challenge lies in identifying the attorney who is truly the right choice for their unique needs. The constant bombardment of gimmicky radio ads and billboard posters only adds to the complexity of the search.

At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we distinguish ourselves by focusing on quality over quantity. Each of our attorneys boasts nearly two decades of invaluable experience, complemented by a distinguished track record of success in representing both employers and employees. Our commitment is to provide clients with the highest caliber representation, tailored to their specific cases.

While some attorneys may opt to invest their time in crafting catchy radio ads, our attorneys prefer to dedicate their efforts to the courtroom, fighting passionately for our clients’ rights. We encourage you to explore our online reviews or request client references to gain firsthand insight into our exceptional track record.

When you choose the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., you’re not merely selecting legal expertise; you’re embracing a commitment to delivering the highest standards of service. Your legal needs are our utmost priority, and we’re here to serve as your trusted advocates. If you seek legal representation that prioritizes quality and experience, we encourage you to reach out to us today for exceptional counsel and support. Your path to effective legal resolution begins right here in Fullerton.

We Can Help Fullerton Residents With Cases Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Vance v. Ball State University (2013) 570 U.S. 421.

Vance v. Ball State University was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of who qualifies as a “supervisor” in the context of employer liability for workplace harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The key facts of the case are as follows: Maetta Vance, an African American woman, was an employee at Ball State University in Indiana. She alleged that her co-worker, Saundra Davis, had racially harassed her. Vance brought a lawsuit against Ball State University, claiming that the university was liable for Davis’s actions under Title VII because Davis was a “supervisor.” Ball State University argued that Davis was not a supervisor, and therefore, the university could not be held vicariously liable for her actions. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether Davis qualified as a “supervisor,” making Ball State University potentially vicariously liable for her actions.  In its decision, the Supreme Court clarified the definition of a “supervisor” in the context of Title VII. The Court ruled that an employee is a “supervisor” for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII when they are empowered to take tangible employment actions against the victim, such as hiring, firing, promoting, or reassigning the employee. The Court held that in cases where the alleged harasser does not have this level of authority, the employer may still be liable for the harassment, but the standard for employer liability is based on principles of negligence. Employers are liable if they are negligent in preventing or correcting workplace harassment, but the stricter standard of vicarious liability doesn’t apply. In Vance’s case, because Saundra Davis did not have the authority to take tangible employment actions against Vance, Ball State University could not be held vicariously liable for Davis’s actions. However, Vance could still pursue a negligence-based claim against the university if she could demonstrate that Ball State was negligent in addressing the harassment. This case clarified the standard for determining when an employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees in harassment cases and has had a significant impact on Title VII litigation.  It bears noting that state law differs from federal law in many respects.