Glendale Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is dedicated to protecting the rights of workers in Glendale who suffer discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace.

Glendale Employment Attorneys Ready to Fight

The City of Glendale is a part of the County of Los Angeles. It lies in the Verdugo Mountains and is north of downtown Los Angeles. Glendale was incorporated in 1906 and owes much of its success to real estate developer Leslie Coombs Brand, for whom the town’s main drag is named. The city sits on more than 30 square miles and is home to a population of almost 200,000 residents, spanning across the following zip codes: 91201, 91202, 91203, 91204, 91205, 91206, 91207, 91208, 91210, and 91214. Known as the Jewel City, Glendale is home to many large employers including Forest Lawn Memorial Park, DreamWorks SKG, the International House of Pancakes, Disney’s Grand Central Creative Campus, and the State Compensation Insurance Fund to name a few. Glendale is also home to the Glendale Galleria and the “Americana at Brand.” The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in the City of Los Angeles, which is adjacent to, and only minutes away from the City of Glendale. From our main office in Los Angeles, we provide legal services to employees and employers in Glendale, California.

Glendale Labor Laws

The employment relationship between employers and employees in the City of Glendale is governed by a several distinct sets of local, state, and federal law. Federal laws governing the workplace in Glendale include but are not limited to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. State laws governing the workplace in Glendale include, but are not limited to the California Constitution, the California Labor Code, the California Government Code, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the California Family Rights Act, and the California Business & Professions Code.

Wrongful Termination Lawyers In Glendale

If you are in Glendale, California, finding the best wrongful termination attorney may not be easy. Although Glendale is home to many employment attorneys and labor law firms, selecting the right attorney with the requisite skill and experience is not always easy to do. You can try running online searches for “Glendale employment lawyer” or “labor lawyer in Glendale” but this may not be the fastest way to get the best lawyer for your case. If you wish to speak directly with an experienced employment lawyer in Glendale, California, contact the Akopyan Law Firm and speak to one of our Glendale employment attorneys. Each of our labor and employment lawyers has well over a decade of experience in employment law and is ready to speak with you directly about your case.

Best Employment Lawyers in Glendale

A jack of all trades is a master of none. If you need the best employment attorney in Glendale for your case you should seek out a local attorney who specializes in employment law. Our skilled Glendale labor law attorneys protecting employees from injustice. We also represent local businesses in Glendale, California. Our Glendale employment lawyers are ready to help with cases involving discrimination, including, but not limited to, age, sex, and race discrimination, emotional distress, retaliation, wrongful termination, and many other forms of illegal conduct in the workplace. Our employment lawyers have a track record of success for both employers and employees in Glendale, California.

Labor Attorneys Glendale

Finding the right labor lawyer in Glendale is not always easy. You can try running online searches for phrases like “labor attorneys near me” or “employee attorney near me” or “employee lawyer near me” but a random online search may not help you find the right lawyer for your case. There are many different firms out there but the approach of each firm varies significantly. Not every employee attorney in Glendale will be a good fit for every case. Some employment lawyers may prefer a quick and easy low value settlement over a big drawn-out fight which can eventually lead to a full value resolution. The goal of the Glendale, California labor lawyers at the Akopyan Law Firm is to achieve the best possible outcome for each client regardless of how big of a fight it would take to get there. Our commitment to performing quality work on every case requires us to limit our practice to a certain number of cases, but every employee who becomes our client is treated like family. We are proud of the first class personal service we provide, but we do not want you to take our word for it – See what our clients have to say! The relationships we build with our clients often outlast the life of the case. Our Glendale, California employment lawyers fight passionately for our clients as confirmed by the excellent results they have achieved. If you are looking for employment lawyers in Glendale, call our firm today for a free case review.

We Can Help Glendale Employees and Employers With Cases Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc., 188 Cal. App. 4th 297, 302, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453, 457–58 (2010)

Plaintiff Robert Sandell appealed from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Taylor–Listug, Inc. (Taylor–Listug) on Sandell’s claims for disability and age discrimination. Sandell was employed as vice-president of sales at Taylor–Listug, a guitar manufacturer, from 2004 to 2007. Approximately six months into his employment at Taylor–Listug, Sandell suffered a stroke after receiving a chiropractic adjustment. Sandell returned to work at Taylor–Listug in late 2004. During the remainder of Sandell’s employment at Taylor–Listug, he required a cane to walk, and his speech was noticeably slower than it had been prior to his stroke. Taylor–Listug’s chief executive officer terminated Sandell’s employment in late 2007, a few days after Sandell’s 60th birthday, citing displeasure with Sandell’s performance as vice president of sales. The trial court concluded that there were no triable issues of fact with respect to Sandell’s discrimination claims, and granted summary judgment in favor of Taylor–Listug. Having reviewed the record presented on summary judgment, the Court of Appeal conclude that Sandell presented evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of disability and age discrimination, and in response to Taylor–Listug’s proffer of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating his employment, Sandell presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the motivation for his termination was discriminatory. The appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court, and in doing made the following important point: To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the plaintiff must show actions taken by the employer from which one can infer, if such actions remain unexplained, that it is more likely than not that such actions were based on a prohibited discriminatory criterion. To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the prima facie burden is light, and the evidence necessary to sustain the burden is minimal. Defendant’s chief executive officer’s (CEO) alleged comments to the employee who suffered from stroke that limited his ability to walk and speak, stating that employer had a right to fire or demote employee if he did not make a full recovery, and asking when employee was going to “get rid of the cane” and “drop the dramatization,” was direct evidence of the existence of a discriminatory motive in the employee’s termination from his position as vice president of sales, and did support Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claim of disability discrimination. The employee made a prima facie showing that he was performing satisfactorily at his job as vice president of sales for guitar company at the time of his termination at age 60, as required for a prima facie case of age discrimination under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) based on wrongful termination, with evidence that employer’s sales fell less than the market average despite a decreasing overall market for guitars, and that employee instituted a number of new sales programs. The employee made a prima facie showing of circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination in his termination at age 60 from the position of vice president of sales for guitar company, as required for a prima facie case of age discrimination under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), with evidence that the chief executive officer (CEO), who was five years younger, took over employee’s responsibilities for a year and a half, and that a new vice-president in his mid-forties then took over. Chief executive officer’s (CEO) question to everyone at a meeting inquiring about each person’s age could not reasonably support an inference that CEO was motivated to terminate employment of the 60-year-old vice-president for sales because of his age, in vice-president’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) age discrimination action.

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

$400 ThousandEmployment: Constructive Termination

$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: Pregnancy Discrimination

$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: Wrongful Termination

$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