La Quinta Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is fully prepared to be a staunch advocate for the rights of La Quinta’s workers who find themselves entangled in issues such as workplace discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or any other form of unlawful workplace behavior. Additionally, our firm is well-equipped to offer cost-effective and practical solutions to employment law challenges for small businesses in La Quinta. Our extensive experience in addressing employment disputes from both the employee and employer perspectives provides us with a unique understanding of our adversaries’ viewpoints, significantly enhancing our ability to secure the best possible outcomes. We are committed to ensuring that justice prevails in the workplace, and we stand ready to provide our expertise to both workers and businesses in La Quinta.

About La Quinta, California

La Quinta is a city located in Riverside County.  “La Quinta” is a Spanish idiom meaning “the country villa.” La Quinta is home to more than 40,000 residents.  It covers approximately thirty five square miles and encompasses the following zip code: 92253. In the late-19th century and early-20th century agriculture developed in present-day La Quinta and “East Valley.” At the time, California and federal land surveyors declared the sand dunes uninhabitable, only the hard rock ground of the “Marshall Cove” held potential farming and residential development. In 1926, Walter Morgan established the La Quinta Resort at the northern section of Marshall Cove as a type of secluded hideaway for nearby Hollywood’s celebrities and socialites. The Resort was the site for the Coachella Valley’s first golf course, coinciding with the construction and pavement of State Route 111 in the 1930s.  As nearby desert cities grew to capacity, La Quinta’s growth rose dramatically by the mid-1980s, which led to its incorporation as a city in 1982. As travel to the desert became easier, Los Angeles residents began making trips to the area. La Quinta was named for the La Quinta Resort. In the 1980 census, La Quinta had 4,200 residents, then increased to 11,215 by 1990 in the city’s early phases of residential area growth. It was predominantly a part-time community until around that time. The City of La Quinta is booming with a growing population, as well as a large seasonal population of “snow birds.”

The Best La Quinta Employment Attorneys

In La Quinta, the search for the right labor lawyer can be a challenging task due to the plethora of options available. Various law firms offer their services, each with its own unique approach and philosophy. It’s important to recognize that not every employee attorney in La Quinta is suitable for every case. Some lawyers may opt for a swift and uncomplicated settlement, prioritizing convenience over securing the full value resolution that their clients deserve. When conducting an online search for terms like “employment lawyer La Quinta” or “wrongful termination attorney in La Quinta,” the results often overflow with paid advertisements from numerous lawyers, each vying for your attention. It can be perplexing to discern which attorney possesses the requisite expertise and dedication to effectively handle employment trials and litigation. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., our team of La Quinta, California labor lawyers adheres to a simple yet unwavering mission: to attain the optimal outcome for every client, irrespective of the scale of the battle that must be waged. Our commitment to delivering top-quality legal representation necessitates that we limit our caseload to ensure that every employee who entrusts us with their case is treated like family. We provide first-class personalized service to our clients, but we don’t expect you to simply take our word for it. We encourage you to explore the feedback and testimonials from our clients, as these often attest to the strong relationships we forge, relationships that frequently endure long after the case has concluded. Our La Quinta employment lawyers approach each case with unwavering passion, as evidenced by the exceptional results we have consistently achieved. If you are in search of employment lawyers in La Quinta, we invite you to contact us today for a complimentary case evaluation. With strategically positioned offices in San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is conveniently located just minutes away from La Quinta. Our employment lawyers are fully prepared to deliver world-class legal services and unparalleled representation to the residents of La Quinta, ensuring their legal needs are met with the highest level of professionalism and dedication.

We Can Help La Quinta Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc. 535 U.S. 81, 122 S. Ct. 1155, 152 L. Ed. 2d 167 (2002)

This is a United States Supreme Court case from 2002.  This case revolved around the interpretation of the notice provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the consequences of an employer’s failure to provide proper notice to an employee. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a federal law that provides eligible employees with certain job-protected leave for specific family and medical reasons. It requires that employers provide employees with notice of their rights and responsibilities under the FMLA. In this case, Patricia Ragsdale, an employee of Wolverine World Wide, Inc., took a leave of absence from work due to medical reasons. During her leave, the employer failed to provide her with the notice required by the FMLA that explained her rights and obligations. When Ragsdale returned to work, her employment was terminated. She sued Wolverine World Wide, Inc., claiming that the failure to provide the required notice invalidated the termination of her employment. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that the failure to provide the required notice did not invalidate the termination of Ragsdale’s employment. The Court ruled that the FMLA contained a “no-fault” provision that excused an employer’s failure to provide notice if the employee did not suffer any actual harm as a result of the failure. In other words, a technical violation of the notice requirement did not automatically invalidate employment actions if the employee was not harmed or prejudiced by the lack of notice. The case clarified that under the FMLA, a violation of notice provisions would only have consequences if the employee could demonstrate that they suffered harm or prejudice as a result of the employer’s failure to provide the required notice. In this case, because Ragsdale did not suffer harm, her termination was not invalidated solely on the basis of the notice violation. This decision had significant implications for the interpretation of notice requirements under the FMLA and the consequences of non-compliance with those requirements.