Mar Vista Employment Attorneys

The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the rights of the residents of Mar Vista, 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.

Mar Vista, California

Mar Vista is a neighborhood of the City of Los Angeles.  Mar Vista is situated on the west side of  Los Angeles, and is home to more than 40,000 residents.  It covers approximately three square miles and encompasses the following zip code: 90066.

Mar Vista is a neighborhood located on the west side of Los Angeles, California. Its history is closely tied to the development of the broader Los Angeles area and reflects the urbanization and growth of the region. Here’s an overview of the history of the Mar Vista neighborhood:

Early Inhabitants: Before European settlement, the area that is now Mar Vista was inhabited by indigenous people, including the Tongva and Chumash tribes. They had established communities along the Los Angeles coast for thousands of years.

Rancho Period: During the Mexican era, the land that would become Mar Vista was part of the Rancho San Jose de Buenos Aires land grant, which was awarded to Ignacio Machado in 1837. It was used primarily for cattle ranching.

American Settlement: After California became a U.S. territory in 1848, and eventually a state in 1850, the landownership patterns changed. The ranchos were broken up and sold to private individuals, and the area now known as Mar Vista began to be subdivided.

Early 20th Century: The development of Mar Vista as a residential area began in the early 20th century. The neighborhood’s growth was partly driven by the expansion of the Pacific Electric Railway’s “Red Car” system, which provided transportation to and from downtown Los Angeles.

World War II: During World War II, the neighborhood saw increased development due to the demand for housing for defense workers and military personnel stationed in the area. Many of the homes in Mar Vista date back to this period.

Post-War Era: After the war, Mar Vista continued to grow as a suburban community. The construction of the San Diego Freeway (I-405) nearby contributed to the accessibility of the neighborhood and the broader Los Angeles area.

Diverse Community: Mar Vista has become known for its diverse community, with residents representing various cultural backgrounds and professions. It’s a reflection of Los Angeles’ overall diversity.

Cultural and Recreational Hub: The neighborhood has several parks, including Mar Vista Park, which provides recreational opportunities for residents. Mar Vista also hosts cultural events and farmers’ markets that contribute to its vibrant atmosphere.

Education: Mar Vista is served by the Los Angeles Unified School District and has several public and private schools, including Mar Vista Elementary School.

Economic and Real Estate Developments: In recent years, Mar Vista has experienced economic growth and real estate development, with an increase in shops, restaurants, and businesses catering to residents.

Community Engagement: The Mar Vista Community Council, a neighborhood council, plays an active role in local governance and community engagement, addressing issues and initiatives important to residents.

Mar Vista’s history reflects the broader trends of suburban development in Los Angeles, with a mix of residential, commercial, and cultural elements that make it a dynamic and evolving neighborhood on the west side of the city.

With offices in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Mar Vista. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Mar Vista.

The Quest For the Best Employment Lawyer in Mar Vista

Mar Vista thrives as a community, offering its residents a wealth of choices when it comes to legal representation. An online search for “employment lawyer Mar Vista” or “wrongful termination attorney Mar Vista” is likely to yield paid advertisements from employment lawyers hailing from various locations. However, the challenge lies in selecting the right attorney with the necessary skills and experience when your decision is predominantly influenced by a paid internet advertisement.

For individuals in Mar Vista facing serious legal issues and real-world challenges within the realm of employment law, it can be perplexing to determine whether a particular attorney is truly well-versed in this field and possesses the requisite experience in handling employment trials and litigation, particularly when their primary reference is an advertisement.

At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each attorney boasts nearly two decades of experience. Our legal team has a well-established track record of success, consistently achieving favorable outcomes for both employees and employers. Our firm’s guiding principle centers around prioritizing quality over quantity, ensuring that each case receives the utmost attention and expertise.

With offices conveniently located just minutes away from Mar Vista, we are fully prepared to offer residents of Mar Vista top-tier legal representation. Your legal needs are our priority, and we stand ready to provide the highest caliber of service.

Our Experienced Lawyers Stand Ready To Fight For Mar Vista Residents In Cases Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Current and former employees brought an action against the employer and individual supervisory employees, alleging age discrimination under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Following the trial court sutaining a demurrer, an appeal was taken.  The Court of Appeal, held that: (1) in FEHA, legislature intended to place individual supervisory employees at risk of personal liability for personal conduct constituting harassment, but did not intend to place individual supervisory employees at risk of personal liability for personnel management decisions later considered to be discriminatory; (2) factual allegations in current and former employees’ complaint against individual supervisory employees pleaded claims of discrimination, but not harassment, under FEHA; and (3) simple pleading of personnel management activity was insufficient to support claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The Court’s opinion states in part as follows: “In Caldwell v. Montoya (1995) 10 Cal.4th 972, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 842, 897 P.2d 1320, the Supreme Court considered whether individual members of a public school board placed themselves at risk of personal liability on claims of FEHA discrimination when they voted to terminate the school district’s superintendent. The Caldwell court found that statutory immunities protect public sector employees from personal liability on claims such as FEHA discrimination. Since Caldwell was decided on the immunity issue, the Caldwell court found it unnecessary to decide the “broad and difficult” preliminary question of whether the FEHA exposes individual supervisory employees to the risk of personal liability for discrimination whenever they make a personnel decision. We now confront that question. The question is one of legislative intent. (See, e.g., *60 California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 692, 698, 170 Cal.Rptr. 817, 621 P.2d 856 [fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature].) Plaintiffs contend that the Legislature intended to place every individual supervisory employee in California at risk of personal liability for employment discrimination every time that supervisory employee makes a personnel decision. Defendants contend that the Legislature intended to authorize lawsuits for employment discrimination against employers only—and not against individual supervisory employees. The primary determinant of legislative intent is the words used by the Legislature. (See, e.g., California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist., supra, 28 Cal.3d 692, 698, 170 Cal.Rptr. 817, 621 P.2d 856.) However, legislative intent is the dominant consideration; a literal reading resulting in unintended consequences does not control over intent. (See, e.g., Whitman v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1063, 1072, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 160, 820 P.2d 262 [settled principle that “statute should not be given a literal meaning if doing so would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not intend”].) Hence both the wording of the statute and the consequences of differing possible constructions must be evaluated in order to determine and effectuate legislative intent. In the present case, these rules of statutory construction can reasonably lead to differing conclusions, and the “broad and difficult question” presented here has consequently generated considerable debate. Below we will expound our decision that the statutory language here in question was not intended to place individual supervisory employees at risk of personal liability for performing the job of making personnel decisions. This decision places us in accord with the growing consensus of courts from around the country which have considered similar language in similar statutes. Our conclusion is based on the wording of the statute, the fundamental distinction between discrimination and harassment, the avoidability of the type of  conduct that can lead to a harassment claim contrasted with the unavoidability of the type of personnel management decision that can lead to a discrimination claim, the prospective rather than retrospective nature of personnel management, the differing statutory treatment of discrimination and harassment, and the reasoning of similar cases.

Janken v. GM Hughes Elecs., 46 Cal. App. 4th 55, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 741 (1996)

 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