Lancaster Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in Lancaster, California.
Lancaster is one of the larger cities in the County of Los Angeles, and has a very rich history. The Antelope Valley’s central geography initially served as the hub of a trade route for tribes trading between the California coast, the Central Valley, the Great Basin, and the pueblos of Arizona. After statehood, the Antelope Valley again served as a geographic shortcut but for the Stockton-Los Angeles Road and the Butterfield Overland Mail. However, Lancaster’s origins as a settlement start with the Southern Pacific Railroad, which replaced the stagecoach routes. The railroad built a station house, locomotive watering facility, section gang housing, and railroad track in the location of the town’s current center.
The community began a steady growth spurt in the 1930s, starting with construction of Muroc Air Force Base (renamed to Edwards AFB). From the 1980s through the end of the program, Edwards AFB hosted a limited number of landings of the Space Shuttle. Lancaster is now home to major defense contractors such as Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, and government agencies, such as the NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center, which are all active in design, testing, and manufacturing of a variety of military and commercial equipment. In 2010, the city opened The BLVD, a one-mile revitalized stretch of Lancaster Boulevard between 10th Street West and Sierra Highway. Lancaster is situated in the Antelope Valley and is home to more than 120,000 residents. It covers more than a hundred square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 93534, 93535, 93536, 93539, 93551, 93584. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Burbank which is minutes away from Lancaster. Thus, we stand ready to provide first class legal representation to both employees and employers in the Lancaster area.
Suggestions For Finding The Best Employment Lawyers in Lancaster
Lancaster, due to its size and strategic location, offers an abundance of legal options for its residents. Lawyers and law firms aplenty extend their services to the Lancaster community, and it’s not uncommon for some to employ aggressive marketing tactics, as if they’d storm your living room if given the chance. Amid this sea of legal offerings, the challenge facing employers and employees in Lancaster is deciphering which attorney truly suits their needs. The quest is further complicated by the relentless barrage of attention-grabbing radio jingles and kitschy posters adorning billboards, buses, and street benches. While many opt to turn to the internet for help, searching for “Lancaster employment lawyer” or “Lancaster wrongful termination attorney” often inundates them with paid advertisements from billboard lawyers. In certain situations, these attorneys might be a suitable choice. However, there are cases that demand nothing short of top-tier representation from seasoned legal counsel. Enter the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., where each of our attorneys boasts nearly two decades of invaluable experience. Our track record is a testament to our prowess, as we’ve consistently delivered favorable outcomes for both employers and employees. What sets us apart is our unwavering commitment to quality, an ethos that prioritizes courtroom advocacy over catchy radio jingles. We’d rather invest our time fighting for our clients’ rights in the courtroom than producing flashy advertisements. 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 to gain insight into our reputation. With our offices just minutes away from Lancaster, we are poised to offer residents legal representation of the utmost caliber. When you choose Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., you’re not just hiring an attorney; you’re securing an unwavering partner in your pursuit of justice.
Our Employment Lawyers Can Help Lancaster Residents With Cases Involving:
Featured Employment Case
Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez (2003) 540 U.S. 44
After respondent tested positive for cocaine and admitted that his behavior violated petitioner’s workplace conduct rules, he was forced to resign. More than two years later, he applied to be rehired, stating on his application that petitioner had previously employed him, and attaching letters both from his pastor about his active church participation and from an Alcoholics Anonymous counselor about his regular attendance at meetings and his recovery. The employee who reviewed and rejected respondent’s application testified that petitioner has a policy against rehiring employees who are terminated for workplace misconduct and that she did not know that respondent was a former drug addict when she rejected his application. Respondent filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming that he had been discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA). The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter, and respondent filed this ADA action, arguing that petitioner rejected his application because of his record of drug addiction and/or because he was regarded as being a drug addict. In response to petitioner’s summary judgment motion, respondent for the first time argued in the alternative that if petitioner applied a neutral no-rehire policy in his case, it still violated the ADA because of that policy’s disparate impact. The District Court granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on the disparate-treatment claim and found that the disparate-impact claim had not been timely pleaded or raised. The Ninth Circuit agreed as to the disparate-impact claim, but held as to the disparate-treatment claim that, under the burden-shifting approach of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668, respondent had proffered a prima facie case of discrimination, and petitioner had not met its burden to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment action **515 because its no-rehire policy, though lawful on its face, was unlawful as applied to employees who were lawfully forced to resign for illegal drug use but have since been rehabilitated. The United States Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit improperly applied a disparate-impact analysis to respondent’s disparate-treatment claim. The United States Supreme Court has consistently distinguished between disparate-treatment and disparate-impact claims. The former arise when an employer treats some people less favorably than others because of a protected characteristic. Liability depends on whether the protected trait actually motivated the employer’s action. The latter involve facially neutral employment practices that fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity. Such practices may be deemed illegally discriminatory without evidence of the employer’s subjective discrimination. Both claims are cognizable under the ADA, but courts must be careful to distinguish between the theories. Here, respondent was limited to the disparate-treatment theory that petitioner refused to rehire him because it regarded him as disabled and/or because of his record of disability. Petitioner’s proffer of its neutral no-rehire policy plainly satisfied its obligation under McDonnell Douglas to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to rehire respondent. Thus, the only remaining question before the Ninth Circuit was whether there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that petitioner did make its employment decision based on respondent’s status as disabled despite its proffered explanation. Instead, that court concluded that, as a matter of law, the policy was not a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason sufficient to defeat a prima facie case of discrimination. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit improperly focused on factors that pertain only to disparate-impact claims, and thus ignored the fact that petitioner’s no-rehire policy is a quintessential legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to rehire an employee who was terminated for violating workplace conduct rules.
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results