La Canada Flintridge Employment Attorneys

The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the rights of the residents of La Canada Flintridge, regardless of whether they are employees or employers.  If your cause is just and involves employment law, give us a call to see how we can help.

La Canada Flintridge, California

La Canada Flintridge is nestled in the Foothills of the San Gabriel Valley.  Incorporated since November 30, 1976, the City is a “contract city.” It has a small full-time staff and contracts for many of the services provided to its citizens.  La Canada Flintridge has a rich history.  In the 1820s the Mexican Revolution removed Spanish rule from California. The area where La Canada presently sits was granted to a Mexican schoolteacher from Los Angeles, Ignacio Coronel. He named it Rancho La Cañada.  In 1875, the 5,830 acre Rancho La Cañada was sold to two health seekers from Michigan, Dr. Jacob Lanterman (dentist) and Colonel Adolphus Williams (Civil War Veteran) for $10,000, a very low price because of lack of water. The partners drew a subdivision map with forty-six 1/4-mile wide lots averaging more than 100 acres each on either side of Michigan Avenue, now Foothill Blvd. In the early 1880s, only twelve families occupied the area between the Arroyo Seco and Rancho Tujunga. Most of these families had at least one member seriously ill with tuberculosis or bronchitis seeking a healthful climate. As Los Angeles grew, people looked for places to spend weekends and vacations. Some of them took rail cars to Glendale and hiked up to La Cañada and La Crescenta. Some built small cabins. A few came in “horseless carriages” and built mansions. Before the city’s incorporation on November 30, 1976, the area consisted of the two distinct communities of La Cañada and Flintridge. La Canada Flintridge is home to more than 20,000 residents.  It covers approximately nine square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 91011, 91012, 91020, ad 91021. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles which is minutes away from La Canada Flintridge. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide legal services to both employees and employers in La Canada Flintridge.

The Best Employment Lawyer in La Canada Flintridge Are Minutes Away

In La Canada Flintridge, as in many thriving communities, residents have a wide array of legal options to choose from. When it comes to employment law matters, finding the best wrongful termination lawyer in La Canada Flintridge can be a daunting task, especially when online searches yield numerous paid advertisements from attorneys across various locations. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we understand the challenges residents face in selecting the right legal representation. We recognize that discerning an attorney’s true expertise and experience can be difficult when relying solely on internet advertisements. Our attorneys, each with nearly two decades of experience, are dedicated to providing top-tier legal services in employment law. We have a strong track record of success in representing both employees and employers, demonstrating our commitment to delivering results. Quality is our guiding principle, and we prioritize it over quantity. We believe that our actions in the courtroom speak louder than any advertising campaign. While we acknowledge the importance of online reviews, we also encourage potential clients to reach out for client references, ensuring that you have a comprehensive understanding of our capabilities. With offices located just minutes away from La Canada Flintridge, we are poised to offer residents high-caliber legal representation. If you are in need of employment lawyers in La Canada Flintridge, please do not hesitate to contact us for a complimentary case evaluation. We are here to serve the community with exceptional legal expertise and commitment.

We Stand Ready To Help La Canada Flintridge Residents With Employment Law Disputes, Including Those Involving:

Featured Employment Case:

Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, (1979) 441 U.S. 750

Section 14(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) provides that in the case of an alleged unlawful practice occurring in a State which has a law prohibiting discrimination in employment because of age and authorizing a state authority to grant and seek relief from such discriminatory practice, no suit may be brought under § 7(c) of the ADEA before the expiration of 60 days after proceedings have been commenced under the state law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated. Section 14(b) also provides that if any requirement for the commencement of such proceedings is imposed by a state authority other than a requirement of a filing of a written and signed statement of the facts upon which the proceeding is based, the proceeding shall be deemed to have been commenced for the purposes of § 14(b) at the time such statement is sent by registered mail to the appropriate state authority. Respondent, who had been involuntarily retired after 23 years of employment by petitioner company, filed with the United States Department of Labor a notice of intent to sue the company under the ADEA, charging that he had been forced to retire because of his age in violation of the Act. Upon respondent’s inquiry, the Department informed him that the ADEA contained no requirement that he file a state complaint in order to preserve his federal rights. After federal conciliation efforts failed, respondent brought suit against petitioner company and company officials in Federal District Court, which denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Iowa State Civil Rights Commission was empowered to remedy age discrimination in employment and that § 14(b) required resort to this state remedy prior to the commencement of the federal suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court explained in its holding that the ADEA is similar in many respects to Title VII, although there are some important differences in the ADEA’s scope and details. The high Court noted that where the ADEA and Title VII provisions parallel each other, courts routinely rely on Title VII decisions in interpreting comparable ADEA provisions. The key holding was: (a) Since the ADEA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 share the common purpose of the elimination of discrimination in the workplace, since the language of § 14(b) is almost in haec verba with § 706(c) of Title VII, which has been interpreted to require individuals in deferral States to resort to appropriate state proceedings before bringing suit under Title VII, and since the legislative history of § 14(b) indicates that its source was § 706(c), it may be properly concluded that Congress intended that the construction of § 14(b) should follow that of § 706(c), and (b) Claimants do not have the option to ignore state remedies merely because under the ADEA, unlike Title VII, they may file with state and federal agencies simultaneously. The ADEA permits concurrent rather than sequential state and federal administrative jurisdiction in order to expedite the processing and settling of age-discrimination claims, and thus the possibility of concurrent state and federal cognizance does not support the construction of § 14(b) that ADEA grievants may ignore state remedies altogether. A Committee Report accompanying 1978 ADEA amendments which suggested that resort to state remedies should be optional under § 14(b) is insufficient to overcome the clear and convincing evidence that Congress, in 1967, intended § 14(b) to have the same meaning as § 706(c).