Manhattan Beach Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to fight for the rights of workers in Manhattan Beach dealing with discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace. The firm also stands ready to provide small businesses in Manhattan Beach economical and efficient solutions to problems involving employment law.  Our substantial experience in approaching employment disputes from both sides gives us rare insight into the mindset of the opponent, which truly goes a long way to achieving the best possible outcome.

About Manhattan Beach, California

Manhattan Beach is a beachside city located in the South Bay section of Los Angeles County.  It is home to more than 35,000 residents.  It covers approximately four square miles. Manhattan Beach is a charming coastal city with a rich history: Before European settlement, the area was inhabited by the Tongva people, who had a village known as “Shwaanga” near the current location of Manhattan Beach. They thrived on fishing and hunting in the region. In the 1800s, the Mexican government granted vast land holdings called ranchos to private individuals. The area now known as Manhattan Beach was part of the Rancho Sausal Redondo, a cattle ranch owned by Antonio Ygnacio Avila. The land changed hands after California became a U.S. territory in 1848 and was later admitted as a state in 1850. Subsequent owners divided and sold off portions of the land. In 1901, the developer John Merrill and his partners, Charles A. Canfield and Arthur I. Pratt, purchased a significant portion of the land from the Redondo Beach Land and Water Company. They envisioned a beachfront resort community and founded the city of Manhattan Beach in 1912. Manhattan Beach developed as a seaside resort, and amenities like the pier, a saltwater plunge, and the grand Strand Hotel attracted visitors. The city also held popular events like aviation meets and beauty pageants. During World War II, the city’s coastal location played a role in national defense. The military constructed a naval air base known as the “Manhattan Beach Training and Development Center” on the city’s land. Manhattan Beach played a significant role in popularizing beach volleyball, and it is often considered one of the birthplaces of the sport. The first official two-man beach volleyball game was played here in the 1930s. After World War II, Manhattan Beach saw significant residential and commercial growth. The city’s proximity to the aerospace and technology industries in nearby areas contributed to its economic prosperity. Manhattan Beach is known for its strong commitment to education, and its public schools are highly rated. The city is also home to cultural events, including the annual Manhattan Beach Open volleyball tournament.  The city has a rich surfing history, with iconic surf spots like the Manhattan Beach Pier. Surfers have been riding waves here since the early 20th century, and it continues to be a popular destination for surfers from around the world. Manhattan Beach has been proactive in environmental preservation and was one of the first cities in California to ban smoking on its beaches. The city’s pier is a prominent landmark, offering stunning views of the Pacific Ocean. The Roundhouse Aquarium, located at the end of the pier, is an educational facility that showcases local marine life.  The city boasts numerous parks and green spaces, including Polliwog Park, which features a large pond and botanical garden. Manhattan Beach has evolved from a beachside resort into a thriving coastal community known for its beach culture, recreational activities, and commitment to education and the environment. Its unique history and vibrant atmosphere make it a beloved destination in Southern California. With offices in Burbank, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Manhattan Beach. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Manhattan Beach.

Your Search For The Best Manhattan Beach Employment Attorneys Is Over

Selecting the right labor lawyer in Manhattan Beach can be a challenging task. The city is home to numerous law firms, each with its own distinctive approach and philosophy. It’s important to recognize that not every employee attorney in Manhattan Beach will suit every case. Some employment lawyers may prefer quick and straightforward, low-value settlements, while others may be willing to engage in a protracted legal battle to achieve a full-value resolution. When conducting an internet search for “employment lawyer Manhattan Beach” or “wrongful termination attorney in Manhattan Beach,” you’ll likely encounter numerous paid advertisements from lawyers who are inclined toward the easier approach. The mission of the Manhattan Beach, California labor lawyers at the Akopyan Law Firm is to secure the best possible outcome for each client, regardless of the level of complexity or difficulty involved. Our commitment to delivering high-quality legal services necessitates that we limit our practice to a certain number of cases, ensuring that every employee who becomes our client receives personalized attention and care. We take great pride in providing top-tier personal service, and we encourage you to explore what our clients have to say about their experiences with us. The relationships we cultivate with our clients often extend beyond the duration of their cases. Our Manhattan Beach employment lawyers approach each case with passion and dedication, as attested by the excellent results we have consistently achieved. If you are in search of employment lawyers in Manhattan Beach, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us today for a complimentary case evaluation. Your legal needs are our priority.

We Can Help Manhattan Beach Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

A university’s former director of affirmative action filed suit against the university and its officers and attorneys for breach of employment contract, wrongful discharge based on race and ethnic origin, retaliation, and harassment under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), violation of the federal Equal Pay Act, defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and interference with prospective economic advantage. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for defendants. The director appealed.  The appellate court’s opinion stated as follows: Both federal and state laws prohibit employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, sex, or ethnic origin. (Gov.Code, §§ 12940, subd. (a), 12941, subd. (a); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. [title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. No. 88-352 (July 2, 1964) 78 Stat. 241)].) In cases alleging employment discrimination, we analyze the trial court’s decision on a motion for summary judgment using a three-step process that is based on the burden-shifting test that was established by the United States Supreme Court for trials of employment discrimination claims in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668. (See, e.g., Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 354–355, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089; Reeves v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 95, 111, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 717 (Reeves ).) This test “reflects the principle that direct evidence of intentional discrimination is rare, and that such claims must usually be proved circumstantially. Thus, by successive steps of increasingly narrow focus, the test allows discrimination to be inferred from facts that create a reasonable likelihood of bias and are not satisfactorily explained.” (Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 354, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.)  At trial, under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff may raise a presumption of discrimination by presenting a “prima facie case,” the components of which vary depending upon the nature of the claim, but typically require evidence that “ ‘(1) [the plaintiff] was a member of a protected class, (2) [the plaintiff] was qualified for the position he [or she] sought or was performing competently in the position … held, (3) [the plaintiff] suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance [that] suggests discriminatory motive.’ ” (Reeves, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 111-112, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 717.) “A satisfactory showing to this effect gives rise to a presumption of discrimination which, if unanswered by the employer, is mandatory—it requires judgment for the plaintiff.” (Id. at p. 112, citing Guz, supra, at pp. 355–356, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.) However, under the second step of the test, “the employer may dispel the presumption merely by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action. [Citation.] At that point the presumption disappears.” (Reeves, at p. 112.) Under the third step of the test, the “plaintiff must … have the opportunity to attack the employer’s proffered reasons as pretexts for discrimination, or to offer any other evidence of discriminatory motive.” (Guz, supra, at p. 356, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.) The McDonnell–Douglas framework is modified in the summary judgment context. In a summary judgment motion in “an employment discrimination case, the employer, as the moving party, has the initial burden to present admissible evidence showing either that one or more elements of plaintiff’s prima facie case is lacking or that the adverse employment action was based upon legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors.” (Hicks v. KNTV Television, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 994, 1003, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 240, citing Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 357, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.) Defendants here presented evidence that Serri was terminated for legitimate reasons that were “unrelated to unlawful discrimination.” (Hicks, at p. 1003, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 240.) “[I]f nondiscriminatory, [the employer’s] true reasons need not necessarily have been wise or correct. [Citations.] While the objective soundness of an employer’s proffered reasons supports their credibility …, the ultimate issue is simply whether the employer acted with a motive to discriminate illegally. Thus, ‘legitimate’ reasons [citation] in this context are reasons that are facially unrelated to prohibited bias, and which, if true, would thus preclude a finding of discrimination.” (Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 358, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089, original italics.) Examples of legitimate reasons are a failure to meet performance standards (Trop v. Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1149, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 144) or a loss of confidence in an employee (Arteaga v. Brink’s, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 327, 352, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 654). If the employer meets its initial burden, the burden shifts to the employee to “demonstrate a triable issue by producing substantial evidence that the employer’s stated reasons were untrue or pretextual, or that the employer acted with a discriminatory animus, such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the employer engaged in intentional discrimination or other unlawful action.” (Cucuzza v. City of Santa Clara (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1038, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 660 (Cucuzza ).)

Serri v. Santa Clara Univ., 226 Cal. App. 4th 830, 172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 732 (2014)