Lynwood Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in Lynwood, California.
Lynwood is a city located in south Los Angeles. Lynwood is home to more than 70,000 residents. It covers approximately five square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 90002, 90059, and 90262. Lynwood’s history began with a settlement colonized by Spanish aristocrats, or dons, and American pioneers who purchased, settled, and formed a small communal town in the area. It started with Don Antonio Maria Lugo. In 1810, Lugo was awarded 11 square leagues of land in California by the king of Spain for his military service during the establishment of the Francisco missions in the state. After Lugo received these tracts of land (29,514 acres), Lugo named the area Rancho San Antonio, possibly after birthplace at La Misión San Antonio de Padua, in Jolon, California. These tracts of land make up the bordering cities of Bell, Bell Gardens, Commerce, Cudahy, Huntington Park, Lynwood, Maywood, Montebello, South Gate, Vernon, and Walnut Park today.
– Lynwood is known for its diverse population, reflecting the broader cultural diversity of Los Angeles County.
– The city has a predominantly Latino and Hispanic population, with a significant African American and Asian American presence as well.
– Lynwood’s demographics have evolved over the years due to changing immigration patterns and economic opportunities.
– The local economy has been historically linked to agriculture, but it has diversified over the years.
– Lynwood has several shopping centers, small businesses, and services that cater to the needs of its residents.
Lynwood’s Education System
– Lynwood is served by the Lynwood Unified School District, which operates several public elementary, middle, and high schools in the city.
– The Los Angeles County Office of Education also operates a number of educational institutions in the area.
– Nearby institutions of higher education include California State University, Dominguez Hills, and various community colleges.
Transportation in Lynwood
– Lynwood is well-connected to the broader Los Angeles area through major roadways, including Interstate 105 (Century Freeway) and Interstate 710 (Long Beach Freeway).
– The city has several public transportation options, including bus services provided by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro).
Notable Landmarks in Lynwood
– St. Francis Medical Center: A prominent healthcare facility in the city.
– Lynwood Civic Center: Houses city government offices and public services.
– Lynwood Park: A community park with recreational facilities.
– Lynwood High School: A notable local high school with a strong athletic program.
Lynwood’s Challenges and Opportunities
– The city has also been actively engaged in community development projects and efforts to improve the quality of life for its residents.
Lynwood’s history and culture are deeply intertwined with the broader Los Angeles metropolitan area, making it a diverse and dynamic part of Southern California. With offices in Burbank, Orange, and Riverside the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Lynwood. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Lynwood.
Options For Finding The Best Employment Lawyers in Lynwood
Lynwood, due to its central location, presents a wealth of choices for its residents when it comes to legal representation. There is no shortage of lawyers and law firms offering their services to the Lynwood community. In fact, some of them are so eager to assist that they might figuratively break down your door and attempt to pitch their services right in your living room. For both employers and employees in Lynwood dealing with significant legal issues and real-world challenges in the realm of employment law, the primary difficulty lies in discerning which lawyer is the ideal fit for their unique circumstances. This task is further complicated by the constant barrage of attention-grabbing radio advertisements and eye-catching posters plastered on billboards, buses, and street benches. While many individuals turn to online searches for help, querying “Lynwood employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Lynwood” often results in search outcomes inundated with paid advertisements from lawyers who are known for their billboard-sized presence. In some instances, a billboard lawyer may indeed offer excellent services. However, there are cases that necessitate top-tier representation from experienced counsel. Each attorney at the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. possesses nearly two decades of invaluable experience. Our legal team has an indisputable track record of success, consistently delivering favorable outcomes for both employers and employees. Our firm’s ethos revolves around prioritizing quality over quantity. Our attorneys prefer to invest their time in the courtroom, vigorously advocating for their clients’ rights, rather than in a recording studio crafting catchy radio ads. We don’t merely expect you to take our word for it; we are more than willing to provide client references upon request. Additionally, you can peruse our online reviews to gain insight into the experiences of our clients. With conveniently located offices just minutes away from Lynwood, we are fully prepared to offer Lynwood residents legal representation of the highest caliber.
Our Attorneys Can Help Lynwood Residents With Cases Involving:
Featured Employment Case
Green v. State of California, 42 Cal. 4th 254, 165 P.3d 118 (2007)
A former stationary engineer at a state correctional facility who had contracted Hepatitis C, presumably from sewer pipes at the facility, and who suffered an unrelated back injury, sued the state alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) after he was placed on disability leave. The Superior Court entered judgment on a jury verdict for the engineer, but reduced the award of noneconomic damages. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court granted state’s petition for review, superseding the opinion of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court, Chin, J., held that the engineer had the burden of proving ability to perform essential duties of job with or without reasonable accommodation, and that the court’s failure to instruct on engineer’s burden was reversible error. The Court’s opinion states in part as follows: “By its terms, section 12940 makes it clear that drawing distinctions on the basis of physical or mental disability is not forbidden discrimination in itself. Rather, drawing these distinctions is prohibited only if the adverse employment action occurs because of a disability and the disability would not prevent the employee from performing the essential duties of the job, at least not with reasonable accommodation. Therefore, in order to establish that a defendant employer has discriminated on the basis of disability in violation of the FEHA, the plaintiff employee bears the burden of proving he or she was able to do the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. In this sense, the FEHA is strikingly similar to the ADA, which as indicated prohibits employer discrimination against any “qualified individual with a disability,” i.e., discrimination against “an individual with a disability *263 who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position.” (42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); see 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).) This similarity between the state and federal enactments is not a coincidence, but reflects the Legislature’s deliberate effort in 1992 to conform the FEHA to this ADA provision. As the legislative history discloses, the Legislature amended the FEHA in 1992 by clarifying that an employee must be able to perform the “essential duties with reasonable accommodations.” (Stats.1992, ch. 913, § 1, p. 4282.) In passing the amendment, at least one legislative analysis observed the Legislature’s “conformity [to the ADA rules] will benefit employers and businesses because they will have one set of standards with which they must comply in order to be certain that they do not violate the rights of individuals with physical or mental disabilities.” (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1077 (1991–1992 Reg. Sess.) as amended Jan. 6, 1992, p. 4.) It is clear, then, that the Legislature incorporated the ADA requirement with full knowledge of the purpose the language serves in the ADA—as a means of distinguishing permissible employment practices from impermissible disability discrimination based on the employee’s ability to perform in the particular employment position with reasonable accommodation. Thus, even if there were some conceivable ambiguity regarding the burden issue prior to that point in time, no such ambiguity existed afterward.” Green v. State of California, 42 Cal. 4th 254, 262–63, 165 P.3d 118, 123 (2007)
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results