Hesperia Employment Attorneys
Our seasoned employment lawyers are prepared to enforce and protect the rights of Hesperia residents.
Hesperia is city located in San Bernardino County. Hesperia covers seventy two square miles. It is home to roughly 95,000 residents. Hesperia lies within zip codes 92340, 92344, 92345. Hesperia’s history extends far beyond its official incorporation in 1988, reflecting a rich past that includes the Mojave Indian Tribe, Spanish settlers, and pioneers on the Mormon Trail. A significant turning point in Hesperia’s history occurred in 1885 with the completion of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe railroad tracks. This marked the birth of Hesperia’s first industry, as it became a supplier of juniper wood to bakers in Los Angeles via the newly established train route. Juniper wood, known for its hardness, served as a crucial fuel source for kilns until the early 1900s when oil replaced it as the primary fuel. This technological shift didn’t impede Hesperia’s progress. The 1900s brought significant growth, thanks in part to the rising popularity of automobiles and the emergence of Route 66. Hesperia played a pivotal role as the last stopping point for travelers before they embarked on the challenging journey through the Cajon Pass. Today, Hesperia is recognized for more than just affordable housing. It boasts a pleasant desert climate, clean air, breathtaking scenery, picturesque sunsets, and a strong sense of community. The city offers a wide range of housing options, including custom-built villas with views of Hesperia Lakes, modern subdivisions with amenities, and large-lot residential zoning, providing residents with a rural lifestyle while benefiting from city services. Additionally, Hesperia’s strategic location near the Cajon Pass ensures minimal commute times to nearby areas such as Ontario, San Bernardino, and Riverside. Hesperia’s growing population has led to increased business development, exemplified by the High Desert Gateway Retail Center and the shops at Topaz and Topaz Marketplace, contributing to the city’s thriving economy and vibrant community.
How Hesperia Residents Can Find the Best Employment Lawyer
Hesperia residents have various ways to find an attorney, such as asking for recommendations, searching online for terms like “wrongful termination attorney Hesperia,” or contacting billboard lawyers. The key is to ensure the chosen attorney has the right experience and a track record of success. The Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., with offices in Riverside, Orange, and Burbank, is conveniently close to Hesperia. Our employment lawyers have nearly two decades of experience, serving both employees and employers. We offer top-notch legal services and representation for Hesperia residents, prioritizing quality and results.
We Can Help Hesperia Residents With:
Featured Employment Case
Moore v. Regents of Univ. of California, 248 Cal. App. 4th 216, 206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 841 (2016)
A former state university employee sued the university regents under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in interactive process, and retaliation, as well as causes of action under California Family Rights Act (CFRA) for interference and retaliation, stemming from the employee’s termination from her employment in university’s marketing and communications department after she was diagnosed with idiopathic cardiomyopathy. The Superior Court granted university summary judgment. The mployee appealed. The Court of Appeal held that: (1) fact issues existed as to whether university’s nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating employee were pretextual, precluding summary judgment on FEHA discrimination claim; (2) the determination that the employee did not have a disability was not proper basis for denying FEHA claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in interactive process; (3) fact issues precluded summary judgment on employee’s FEHA claims for failure to accommodate and failure to engage in interactive process; (4) the amendment to FEHA providing for protection against retaliation when individual requested reasonable accommodation operated prospectively; (5) the employee’s request for accommodation by requesting time off for surgery did not constitute protected activity, and thus request did not support FEHA retaliation claim; (6) the employee did not engage in protected activity under FEHA retaliation provision by notifying university of her diagnosis; (7) fact issue precluded summary judgment on employee’s CFRA retaliation claim; and finally (8) fact issue precluded summary judgment on employee’s CFRA interference claim. In its opinion the Court explained as follows: The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) proscribes two types of disability discrimination: (1) discrimination arising from employer’s intentionally discriminatory act against an employee because of his or her disability, or “disparate treatment discrimination,” and (2) discrimination resulting from an employer’s facially neutral practice or policy that has a disproportionate effect on employees suffering from a disability, or “disparate impact discrimination.” In order to prevail on a Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) discrimination claim, plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to show that an illegitimate criterion was a substantial factor in the particular employment decision. To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under McDonnell Douglas test, plaintiff must show actions taken by employer from which one can infer, if such actions remain unexplained, that it is more likely than not that such actions were based on prohibited discriminatory criterion. In demonstrating that employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason for adverse employment action is false or pretextual under McDonnell Douglas test, employee cannot simply show that employer’s decision was wrong or mistaken, since factual dispute at issue is whether discriminatory animus motivated employer, not whether employer is wise, shrewd, prudent, or competent; rather, employee must demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence, and hence infer that employer did not act for asserted non-discriminatory reasons.
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results