Maywood Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the rights of the residents of Maywood, 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.
Maywood is a city in southeast Los Angeles. Maywood is a very small situated in southeast Los Angeles which is home to more than 20,000 residents. It covers just over one square mile and encompasses and lies in the zip code 90270.
On September 2, 1924, Maywood citizens voted to incorporate. By 1924, the population of Maywood had reached 1,000. The city featured homes, stores and a movie theater. Maywood celebrated its 25th Anniversary in 1949 with a rodeo, beard-growing contest and professional wrestling matches in the City park. In the early 1950s, Maywood Park became the home of the Golden State Baseball Association. Now, more than 80 years since incorporation, Maywood retains its small atmosphere, though surrounded by a massive metropolis. Maywood still offers an ideal residential community for those who work in surrounding communities.
With offices in Burbank, Orange, and Riverside the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Maywood. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Maywood.
The Best Employment Lawyer in Maywood Is A Phone Call Away
Maywood is a thriving community, offering its residents a multitude of options when it comes to legal representation. When conducting an online search for “employment lawyer Maywood” or “wrongful termination attorney Maywood,” it’s common to encounter paid advertisements from employment lawyers originating from various locations. However, the challenge often lies in discerning the right attorney with the necessary skills and experience, especially when your decision relies heavily on a paid internet advertisement.
For individuals in Maywood facing significant legal issues and real-world challenges in the realm of employment law, it can indeed be challenging to ascertain whether a particular attorney possesses in-depth knowledge in this field and the requisite experience to handle employment trials and litigation. This is particularly true when the primary source of information is an advertisement.
At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., every attorney boasts nearly two decades of invaluable experience. Our legal team has consistently delivered favorable outcomes for both employees and employers, establishing an indisputable track record of success. 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 Maywood, we are fully prepared to offer Maywood residents legal representation of the highest caliber. Your legal needs are our priority, and we stand ready to provide world-class service.
The Firm Is Ready To Help Maywood Residents With:
Featured Employment Case
An employee who had been listed for possible termination, but was not actually terminated until after she sustained a shoulder injury, resulting in disability, brought action against former employer, alleging causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), including disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate disability, as well as causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Barbara A. Meiers, J., granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The employee appealed and the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling. The Court’s opinion states in part as follows: “FEHA prohibits an employer from discharging any person from employment—or otherwise discriminating against the person in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment—because of the person’s disability. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a).) Three aspects of FEHA are particularly significant here. First, in situations where the evidence of disability discrimination is circumstantial, “California has adopted the three-stage burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court for trying claims of discrimination … based on a theory of disparate treatment.” (Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 354, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089, citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (McDonnell Douglas).) The McDonnell Douglas test “places on the plaintiff the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination,” *722 requiring evidence that: (1) the plaintiff was a member of a protected class; (2) she was performing competently in the position she held; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action such as termination; and (4) some other circumstance suggests the employer acted on a discriminatory motive. (Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 354-355, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.) The burden then shifts to the employer to produce admissible evidence of one or more legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its adverse employment action. (Id. at 355-356, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.) Finally, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff “to attack the employer’s proffered reasons as pretexts for discrimination, or to offer any other evidence of discriminatory motive.” (Id. at 356, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.) “Invocation of a right to downsize does not resolve whether the employer had a discriminatory motive for cutting back its work force, or engaged in intentional discrimination when deciding which individual workers to retain and release.” (Id. at 358, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.) Second, it is not ordinarily necessary for a disabled employee to show that a disability was the sole reason for a termination, or that the termination would not have happened but for the disability. Instead, when a plaintiff-employee advances a “mixed motive” theory (i.e., a theory that an employer had both legitimate and discriminatory motives for a termination), the plaintiff must show only that her disability was a “substantial motivating factor” in the challenged employment action. ( **829 Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 229-232, 241, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 392, 294 P.3d 49 (Harris).) “[D]iscrimination, though not a ‘but for’ cause of an adverse employment action (because the employer can show it would have taken the same action in any event), might nonetheless be found to be a substantial motivating factor ….” (Id. at 226, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 392, 294 P.3d 49.)3 Thus, “[i]f triable issues of material fact exist [as to] whether discrimination was a substantial motivating reason for the employer’s adverse employment action, even if the employer’s professed legitimate reason has not been disputed, the FEHA claim is not properly resolved on summary judgment.” (Husman v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1168, 1186, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 42.) Third, under the so-called “ ‘cat’s paw’ ” doctrine, a plaintiff “need not demonstrate that every individual who participated in the [challenged employment action] shared discriminatory animus in order to defeat a summary judgment motion…. [S]howing that a significant participant in an employment decision exhibited discriminatory animus is enough to raise an inference that the employment decision itself was discriminatory, even absent *723 evidence that others in the process harbored such animus.” (DeJung v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 533, 551, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 99.)”
Lin v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 88 Cal. App. 5th 712, 304 Cal. Rptr. 3d 820 (2023)
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results