La Habra 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 Habra, 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.

About La Habra, California

La Habra is city located in Orange County.  La Habra covers a little more than seven square miless but is home to more than 60,000 residents.  La Habra lies within zip codes: 90631, 90632, and 90633.  A quiet residential community, it is conveniently located within an hour’s drive of many beaches, mountain, and desert recreation areas.

Early History: La Habra’s history dates back to Spanish colonial times when it was originally part of a land grant known as Rancho La Habra. The name “La Habra” is derived from the Spanish term for “pass through the hills” or “opening in the mountains,” reflecting its geographical location nestled between the Puente Hills and the Coyote Hills.

Incorporation: La Habra was officially incorporated as a city on January 20, 1925. At that time, it was primarily an agricultural community, known for its citrus orchards, avocados, and walnuts.

Development: Over the years, La Habra has grown and evolved into a suburban community. While it has retained some of its agricultural heritage, it has also seen residential and commercial development. Today, it offers a mix of residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, and parks.

Demographics: La Habra has a diverse population, with a mix of cultures and backgrounds. It’s known for its welcoming and family-friendly atmosphere.

Attractions: La Habra is home to several notable attractions, including the Children’s Museum at La Habra, which offers interactive exhibits and educational programs for children. Another popular destination is the La Habra Depot Theatre, which hosts community theater productions.

Parks and Recreation: The city maintains numerous parks and recreational facilities, providing residents with opportunities for outdoor activities, sports, and leisure. One of the prominent parks is La Bonita Park, which features sports fields, playgrounds, and picnic areas.

Location: La Habra’s location is convenient for commuters, as it is situated near major freeways like the 5 and 57, providing easy access to other parts of Orange County and the Greater Los Angeles area.

In summary, La Habra is a thriving and diverse city in Orange County with a rich history, a mix of residential and commercial development, and a strong sense of community. It offers a range of amenities and attractions for its residents and visitors to enjoy.

Are You Searching For the Best Employment Lawyer in La Habra?

La Habra, as a thriving community, offers its residents a plethora of legal professionals to choose from. However, selecting the right attorney for employment law matters can be a daunting task, especially when online searches yield numerous paid advertisements from lawyers from various locations.  At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we understand the challenges residents face when trying to find the right legal representation. It can be challenging to assess an attorney’s true expertise and experience 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 Habra, we are poised to offer residents high-caliber legal representation. If you are in need of the best wrongful termination lawyers in La Habra, 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, with offices in San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Riverside just minutes away from La Habra.

We Are Ready To Help La Habra Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., (2009) 557 U.S. 167

This was an important decision of the United States Supreme Court which held that a plaintiff bringing an Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) disparate-treatment claim must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the “but-for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision. The facts of the case were as follows: Petitioner Gross filed suit, alleging that respondent (FBL) demoted him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which makes it unlawful for an employer to take adverse action against an employee “because of such individual’s age,” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a). At the close of trial, and over FBL’s objections, the District Court instructed the jury to enter a verdict for Gross if he proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was demoted and his age was a motivating factor in the demotion decision, and told the jury that age was a motivating factor if it played a part in the demotion. It also instructed the jury to return a verdict for FBL if it proved that it would have demoted Gross regardless of age. The jury returned a verdict for Gross. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the jury had been incorrectly instructed under the standard established in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268, for cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when an employee alleges that he suffered an adverse employment action because of both permissible and impermissible considerations—i.e., a “mixed-motives” case. The Supreme Court explained its holding as follows:

(a) Because Title VII is materially different with respect to the relevant burden of persuasion, this Court’s interpretation of the ADEA is not governed by Title VII decisions such as Price Waterhouse and Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 94–95, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84. This Court has never applied Title VII’s burden-shifting framework to ADEA claims and declines to do so now. When conducting statutory interpretation, the Court “must be careful not to apply rules applicable under one statute to a different statute without careful and critical examination.” Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 393, 128 S.Ct. 1147, 1153, 170 L.Ed.2d 10. Unlike Title VII, which has been amended to explicitly authorize discrimination claims where an improper consideration was “a motivating factor” for the adverse action, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e–2(m) and 2000e–5(g)(2)(B), the ADEA does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor. Moreover, Congress neglected to add such a provision to the ADEA when it added §§ 2000e–2(m) and 2000e–5(g)(2)(B) to Title VII, even though it contemporaneously amended the ADEA in several ways. When Congress amends one statutory provision but not another, it is presumed to have acted intentionally, see EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 256, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274, and “negative implications raised by disparate provisions are strongest” where the provisions were “considered simultaneously when the language raising the implication was inserted,” Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 330, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481. Pp. 2348 – 2349.

(b) The ADEA’s text does not authorize an alleged mixed-motives age discrimination claim. The ordinary meaning of the ADEA’s requirement that an employer took adverse action “because of” age is that age was the “reason” that the employer decided to act. See Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 610, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338. To establish a disparate-treatment claim under this plain language, a plaintiff must prove that age was the “but-for” cause of the employer’s adverse decision. See Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U.S. 639, ––––, 128 S.Ct. 2131, 170 L.Ed.2d 1012. It follows that under § 623(a)(1), the plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion to establish that “but-for” cause. This Court has previously held this to be the burden’s proper allocation in ADEA cases, see, e.g., Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, 554 U.S. 135, –––– – ––––, –––– – ––––, 128 S.Ct. 2361, 171 L.Ed.2d 322, and nothing in the statute’s text indicates that Congress has carved out an exception for a subset of ADEA cases. Where a statute is **2346 “silent on the allocation of the burden of persuasion,” “the ordinary default rule [is] that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims.” Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 56, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387. Hence, the burden of persuasion is the same in alleged mixed-motives cases as in any other ADEA disparate-treatment action. Pp. 2350 – 2351.

(c) This Court rejects petitioner’s contention that the proper interpretation of the ADEA is nonetheless controlled by Price Waterhouse, which initially established that the burden of persuasion shifted in alleged mixed-motives Title VII claims. It is far from clear that the Court would have the same approach were it to consider the question today in the first instance. Whatever Price Waterhouse ‘s deficiencies in retrospect, it has become evident in the years since that case was decided that its burden-shifting framework is difficult to apply. The problems associated with its application have eliminated any perceivable benefit to extending its framework to ADEA claims. Cf. Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36, 47, 97 S.Ct. 2549, 53 L.Ed.2d 568. Pp. 2351 – 2352.

 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