Irvine Employment Attorneys

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

Irvine, California

Irvine is a city located in Orange County.  Irvine is home to more than 300,000 residents.  It covers approximately sixty seven square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 92602, 92603, 92604, 92606, 92612, 92614, 92616, 92617, 92618, 92619, 92620, 92623, 92650, 92697. Irvine has a rich history. Gaspar de Portola, a Spanish explorer, entered the San Joaquin Valley in 1769, abruptly ending the tranquil life of the Gabrielinos. With the Spanish came forts, missions and herds of cattle. The King of Spain began to parcel out lands for missions and for a few large, private land grants. In 1831, after gaining independence from Spain, the Mexican government secularized the missions, assumed control of land holdings and began distributing ranchos to Mexican citizens who applied for grants. Three large Spanish/Mexican grants made up the land that later became the Irvine Ranch: Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana, Rancho San Joaquin and Rancho Lomas de Santiago. The oldest, Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana, an early Spanish grant to the Yorba family, was confirmed by the Mexican government. In 1837, San Juan Capistrano mission lands were granted to Don Jose Sepulveda, later becoming Rancho San Joaquin. Rancho Lomas de Santiago was granted to Teodosio Yorba in 1846. In that year, the Mexican army was defeated in the final battle of the Mexican-American War. The  Treaty of Guadalupe was signed and California was annexed to the United States. The Congressional Act of 1851 forced landholders to reapply to the Board of Land Commissioners to get valid title to their ranchos. Original grantees, however, had produced large families who were deeding, selling and trading portions of the large ranchos to family members and outsiders. Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana fell prey to tangled titles. In 1868, outside investor Abel Stearns was successful in his suit to dissolve the rancho and divide the property among the claimants, four of whom were prosperous sheep ranchers: Benjamin and Thomas Flint, Llewellyn Bixby and James Irvine. Meanwhile, Jose Sepulveda, owner of Rancho San Joaquin, was heavily in debt. In 1864, the year of the Great Drought, Sepulveda sold his 50,000 acres to Irvine, Flint and Bixby for $18,000. In 1866, Irvine, Flint and Bixby acquired the 47,000-acre Rancho Lomas de Santiago for $7,000. Much of the rancho was not suitable for cultivation, but did border the Santa Ana River on the north, thereby securing valuable water rights. The Irvine, Flint and Bixby ranches were devoted to sheep grazing, although in the 1870’s tenant farming was permitted. In 1878, James Irvine acquired his partners’ interests for $150,000. His 110,000 acres stretched 23 miles from the Pacific Ocean to the Santa Ana River. James Irvine died in 1886. In 1893, his son, James Irvine, Jr., came into full possession of the ranch which he incorporated into The Irvine Company one year later. James, Jr. began shifting ranch operations to field crops, olive and citrus orchards. During World War I, agriculture had intensified, and by 1918, some 60,000 acres of lima beans were grown on the Irvine Ranch. During World War II, two Marine Corps air facilities were built on land sold to the government by The Irvine Company. James Irvine, Jr. died in 1947 at the age of 80. Presidency of the company fell to his son Myford, who began opening small sections of the ranch to urban development. Myford died in 1959. In 1959, the University of California asked The Irvine Company for 1,000 acres for a new campus. The Irvine Company agreed, and the State accepted the land and purchased an additional 500 acres. The University’s consulting architect, William Pereira, and Irvine Company planners drew up master plans for a city of 50,000 people surrounding the university. The area would include industrial zones, residential and recreational areas, commercial centers and greenbelts. The Irvine Industrial Complex West (now known as The Irvine Business Complex) opened and the villages of Turtle Rock, University Park, Culverdale, the Ranch and Walnut were completed by 1970. On December 28, 1971, the residents of these communities voted to incorporate a substantially larger city than that envisioned by the original Pereira plan in order to control the future of the area and protect its tax base. More than 40 years ago, the City of Irvine was still in its infancy. In 2015, Irvine has more than 200,000 jobs and more than 21,000 businesses have a license here. Today, the City Council supports its public schools with more than $9.1 million in direct and in-kind support each year; the City Council has approved a public-private partnership to build parkland on 688 acres of the Orange County Great Park; and businesses continue to make Irvine home or, as Broadcom has done, to decide to build a new or permanent campus for the long-term.

Tips for Finding The Best Employment Lawyers in Irvine

Irvine, nestled in its strategic location, presents residents with an abundance of choices when it comes to legal representation. Lawyers and law firms are aplenty, and some of them may go to great lengths, even attempting a living room pitch, just to secure your business. Amid this bustling legal landscape, both employers and employees in Irvine grapple with the challenge of discerning the right attorney for their needs. The quest is further complicated by the ceaseless onslaught of flashy radio ads and gaudy posters adorning billboards, buses, and street benches.

While most people turn to the internet for guidance, searching for “Irvine employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Irvine” often leads to a deluge of paid advertisements from billboard lawyers. In certain instances, these lawyers might serve their purpose well. However, there exist cases that demand nothing less than top-tier representation from seasoned legal counsel.

Enter the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., where our attorneys collectively boast nearly two decades of invaluable experience. Our track record stands as irrefutable proof of our prowess, consistently delivering favorable outcomes for both employers and employees. What distinguishes us is our unwavering commitment to quality over quantity. Our lawyers would rather invest their time in the courtroom, passionately fighting for our clients’ rights, than in a recording studio crafting catchy radio jingles.

We don’t expect you to take our word for it; we’re more than willing to provide client references upon request. Additionally, you can peruse our online reviews, a testament to our reputation. With offices conveniently located in San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Riverside, the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., is just minutes away from Irvine. Our employment lawyers are poised to deliver world-class services and top-notch representation to Irvine residents. When you choose us, you’re not just securing legal counsel; you’re gaining dedicated partners committed to safeguarding your rights and interests.

We Can Help Irvine Residents With Cases Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Cheal v. El Camino Hosp., 223 Cal. App. 4th 736, 167 Cal. Rptr. 3d 485 (2014), as modified (Feb. 14, 2014)

A former hospital dietetic technician brought an action against hospital employer for age discrimination, wrongful termination, and retaliation. The Superior Court granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment, and the dietetic technician appealed. The Court of Appeal, Rushing, P.J., held that: 1 genuine issue of material fact as to what constituted the relevant standard of competent performance precluded summary judgment; 2 genuine issue of material fact as to whether 16 “coaching” incidents indicated that she committed performance errors precluded summary judgment; 3 genuine issue of material fact as to whether purported failures to strictly comply with hospital’s new “two patient identifier” procedure justified her termination for performance errors precluded summary judgment; 4 genuine of material fact as to whether dietetic technician actually committed menu error just prior to her termination for purported deficient performance, precluded summary judgment; 5 genuine issue of material fact as to whether dietetic technician’s menu error, committed eight months before her termination, fell outside the norm of acceptable performance such that she did not render satisfactory performance precluded summary judgment; and 6 as a matter of first impression, supervisor’s statement to friend that “We shouldn’t have lunch anymore or talk socially at work. People are starting to notice I’m favoring the younger and pregnant ones” fell within hearsay exception as a statement against interest.  Despite the minutiae of the various proof schemes set forth in McDonnell Douglas, the straightforward question to be answered in employment discrimination cases is whether the plaintiff has successfully demonstrated that she was the victim of discrimination on the part of the employer.What constitutes satisfactory performance, for purposes of a discrimination or wrongful termination claim, is a question ordinarily vested in the employer’s sole discretion. An employer does not conclusively establishes the governing standard of competence in an employment discrimination action merely by asserting that the plaintiff’s performance was less than satisfactory.Evidence of the employer’s policies and practices, including its treatment of other employees, may support a contention, and an eventual finding, that the employee’s job performance did in fact satisfy the employer’s own norms; such a finding not only carries the plaintiff’s burden to show competence under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, but also grounds an inference that the true motive for the challenged action lay somewhere else, as in discriminatory animus.

 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