Hacienda Heights Employment Attorneys

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

Hacienda Heights, California

Hacienda Heights is an unincorporated suburban community in Los Angeles County. As of the 2020 census, the community had a total population of more than 54,000.  Hacienda Heights encompasses the following zip codes: 91745, 91746, and 91748.  During Spanish rule, Hacienda Heights was a part of Rancho La Puente, which was operated by the nearby Mission San Gabriel Arcángel in San Gabriel. The Rancho was eventually acquired by John A. Rowland and William Workman in 1845 via a Mexican land grant, and eventually acquired by Elias “Lucky” Baldwin. In 1912, his descendant, Anita Baldwin, sold the property to Edwin Hart and Jet Torrance. The pair subdivided the area and named it North Whittier Heights, which became known for avocado, citrus and walnut orchards, in 1913. However, from the Great Depression era to the early 1940s, citrus growing became unprofitable because of pests and diseases, setting the impetus for the area’s transformation into a suburb. Originally an agricultural town, beginning in the 1940s and accelerating in the 1950s, suburban residential development, which occurred southward (beginning on subdivisions near Kwis Avenue), transformed Hacienda Heights into a residential or bedroom community. In 1961, the Hacienda Heights Branch of the Los Angeles County Public Library opened. The following year, in 1961, the area was renamed Hacienda Heights. In 1964, the local newspaper, the Hacienda Heights Highlander, was established. In the 1970s, much Hacienda Heights, particularly along the northern slopes of Puente Hills, was developed for suburban single family housing, which attracted younger, more affluent and educated families. With offices in both Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is minutes away from Hacienda Heights.  Our employment lawyers stand ready to serve employees and employers in Hacienda Heights with all their employment law needs.

The Best Employment Lawyers for Hacienda Heights

Hacienda Heights, California, is indeed a central hub with numerous legal options for its residents. When it comes to employment-related legal matters, the choices can be overwhelming. The challenge lies in determining which wrongful termination attorney in Hacienda Heights is the ideal fit for your specific needs. In a region where employment law disputes can be intricate and consequential, selecting the right lawyer is crucial. Hacienda Heights, like other areas, often experiences the bombardment of attention-grabbing advertisements, both on the radio and on billboards. While these marketing tactics have their place, they may not necessarily align with the tailored legal assistance you require. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., our attorneys bring nearly two decades of experience to the table. Our track record demonstrates consistent success in advocating for the rights and interests of both employers and employees. We prioritize quality over quantity, dedicating our time to courtroom advocacy rather than producing flashy radio ads. We recognize that choosing the right attorney can be challenging, especially when relying on internet searches or paid advertisements. To alleviate these concerns, we are more than willing to provide client references upon request, allowing you to hear directly from those we have served. Furthermore, you can explore our online reviews to gauge our commitment to delivering exceptional legal services. With conveniently located offices just minutes away from Hacienda Heights, we are well-prepared to offer top-tier legal representation to the community. Whether you are an employer seeking guidance through employment law complexities or an employee facing workplace challenges, the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., stands ready to provide the highest caliber of legal services to Hacienda Heights residents.

We Can Help Hacienda Heights Residents With All Things Employment Law Including:

Featured Employment Case

Vasquez v. Franklin Mgmt. Real Est. Fund, Inc., 222 Cal. App. 4th 819, 166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 242 (2013)

A former employee brought action against former employer, alleging constructive discharge in violation of public policy and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of former employer’s refusal to reimburse former employee for expenses incurred when performing work-related errands in his personal vehicle. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. BC449064, Malcolm Mackey, J., sustained former employer’s demurrers without leave to amend, and former employee appealed. The Court of Appeal, Manella, J., held that: 1 former employee’s allegations potentially established that failure to reimburse for travel expenses created intolerable working conditions which forced former employee to resign; 2 California’s minimum wage law represents a fundamental policy for purposes of a claim for wrongful termination or constructive discharge in violation of public policy; and 3 worker’s compensation exclusivity rule barred intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.Reversed and remanded.  Regarding constructive terminations, the Court opinion stated the following: “an employee may not simply “ ‘quit and sue,’ ” claiming to have been constructively discharged. (Turner,supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1246, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) The facts must support a finding that the resignation was “coerced,” rather than “simply one rational option for the employee.” (Ibid.) “The conditions giving rise to the resignation must be sufficiently extraordinary and egregious to overcome the normal motivation of a competent, diligent, and reasonable employee to remain on the job to earn a livelihood and to serve his or her employer.” (Ibid.) Moreover, “the cases are in agreement that the standard by which a constructive discharge is determined is an objective one—the question is ‘whether a reasonable person faced with the allegedly **248 intolerable employer actions or conditions of employment would have no reasonable alternative except to quit.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1248, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022, quoting Rochlis v. Walt Disney Co. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 201, 212, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 793.) In other words, the applicable standard is whether “ ‘the adverse working conditions [are] so intolerable’ ” or “unusually adverse” that “ ‘any reasonable employee would resign rather than endure [them].’ ” (Turner,supra, at p. 1247, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022, quoting Slack v. Kanawha County Housing (1992) 188 W.Va. 144, 423 S.E.2d 547, 556.) Although situations may exist where the employee’s decision to resign is unreasonable as a matter of law, “[w]hether conditions were so intolerable as to justify a reasonable employee’s decision to resign is normally a question of fact. [Citation.]” (Valdez v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1056, 282 Cal.Rptr. 726; accord, Scotch v. Art Institute of California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986, 1022, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 338.)”

 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