Menifee Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in Menifee, California.
Menifee is a city located in Riverside County. Menifee is home to more than 106,000 residents. It covers approximately forty six square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 92584, 92585, 92586, 92587, and 92596. Interstate 215 traverses north and south through the center of Menifee, with existing community commercial areas located primarily along Newport, Bradley, and McCall Roads off of I-215. The area was originally inhabited by the Luiseno and Pechanga Indian tribes, and in the 1700s, the area fell under the rule of the Spanish empire. The area was eventually annexed into the United States from Mexico in 1850 under California’s statehood. Farming activity beginning in the mid-1800s was concentrated in the Menifee area. Mining activity began in the early 1880s with the discovery of a significant quartz lode by miner Luther Menifee Wilson. Menifee derived its name from that mining operation. Early development of the City of Menifee began with Sun City in the early 1960s as the concept of an active retirement community that was envisioned by Del Webb, a major building contractor from Phoenix, Arizona. Sun City is centrally located within the City of Menifee with a mix of residential and commercial activity. The Menifee area began to grow further in 1989 with the master-planned community of Menifee Lakes and continues to be one of the fastest growing communities in California. Quail Valley is a semi-rural residential community in the northwestern section of the city, and Romoland is a residential and commercial community located in the northeastern section of the city. On June 3, 2008, the residents of the communities encompassing the City of Menifee voted to incorporate Menifee into Riverside County’s 26th city. The new City of Menifee was officially established on October 1, 2008.
The Best Employment Lawyers in Menifee
In Menifee, the array of choices when it comes to legal representation can be overwhelming. The city is home to numerous lawyers and law firms, all vying for the attention of its residents. In fact, some of these legal practitioners may seem so eager that they would break down your door and rush into your living room to make a sales pitch if they could.
However, when individuals in Menifee find themselves facing substantial legal issues, particularly in the realm of employment law, the challenge lies in identifying the lawyer who is truly the right fit for their specific needs. This challenge is exacerbated by the constant barrage of gimmicky radio ads and clichéd posters that saturate billboards, buses, and street benches throughout the city. Most people turn to online searches to find legal representation, but a search for “Menifee employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Menifee” often yields search results inundated with paid advertisements from lawyers who employ such billboard marketing tactics.
While billboard lawyers may be well-suited for certain cases, there are undoubtedly situations that demand the highest quality representation from experienced legal counsel. This is precisely where the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. distinguishes itself.
Each attorney at our firm boasts nearly two decades of experience, with a proven track record of success representing both employers and employees. Our approach is grounded in a commitment to quality over quantity. Rather than investing our time in recording catchy radio ads or saturating the public space with billboards, our lawyers prefer to channel their efforts into the courtroom, zealously advocating for our clients’ rights.
We understand that you shouldn’t merely take our word for it, which is why we are more than happy to provide client references upon request. You can also explore our online reviews, which often serve as testaments to our unwavering dedication to providing exceptional legal services.
With strategically located offices in Riverside, Orange, and Burbank, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is conveniently positioned just minutes away from Menifee. Our employment lawyers are poised and prepared to deliver world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Menifee, ensuring that their legal needs are met with the utmost professionalism and skill. We are committed to guiding and representing you through the complexities of employment law and other legal challenges, offering the experience and dedication that you deserve.
We Can Help Menifee Residents With:
Fatured Employment Case
A medical resident with a medical degree who received compensation for providing patient services sued the hospital, alleging gender discrimination, retaliation for reporting gender discrimination, and failure to prevent gender discrimination or retaliation in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), whistleblower retaliation in violation of Health and Safety Code, and whistleblower retaliation for reporting unsafe workplace conditions. The jury found for the defendant. and the ressident appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the rule of academic deference does not apply to FEHA claims. The court’s opinion states in part as follows: “We begin by noting the elements of and analysis required in California for claims of gender discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under FEHA a plaintiff must show they engaged in “protected activity”; **502 the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action; and a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employer’s action. (Yanowitz v. L’Oreal, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1042, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 116 P.3d 1123 (Yanowitz).) To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under FEHA, a plaintiff must show they were a member of a protected class; they were qualified for the position or were performing competently in the position they held; they suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job; and some other circumstance suggested discriminatory motive. (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 355, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089 (Guz).) Once a plaintiff establishes a prima face case, the employer is required to offer a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the employer produces a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, the presumption of retaliation and discrimination “drops out of the picture,” and the *398 burden shifts back to the employee to prove intentional retaliation or discrimination. This is the three-part burden shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 802–805, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 employed in Title VII cases and adopted by California for use in FEHA cases. (Yanowitz, at p. 1042, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 116 P.3d 1123; Guz, at pp. 354–356, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.) 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, at pp. 354, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.) In contrast to the burden-shifting analysis adopted for FEHA claims in California is the rule of academic deference, which the First District Court of Appeal summarized 25 years ago: “It is well settled that in actions challenging the academic decision of a private university regarding a student’s qualifications for a degree, we exercise a highly deferential and limited standard of review. ‘There is a widely accepted rule of judicial nonintervention into the academic affairs of schools.’ (Paulsen v. Golden Gate University (1979) 25 Cal.3d 803, 808 [159 Cal.Rptr. 858, 602 P.2d 778] (Paulsen).) We may only overturn the university’s decision if we find it to be arbitrary and capricious, not based upon academic criteria, and the result of irrelevant or discriminatory factors. (Id. at pp. 808–809, 159 Cal.Rptr. 858, 602 P.2d 778; accord, Wong v. Regents of University of California (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 823, 830 [93 Cal.Rptr. 502].) We must uphold the university’s decision ‘unless it is such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment.’ (Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing (1985) 474 U.S. 214, 225 [106 S.Ct. 507, 88 L.Ed.2d 523, 532] (Ewing).)” (Banks v. Dominican College (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1545, 1551, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 110 (Banks).) It is this doctrine of academic deference which the trial court erroneously applied to Dr. Khoiny’s claims of gender discrimination and retaliation.
Khoiny v. Dignity Health, 76 Cal. App. 5th 390, 291 Cal. Rptr. 3d 496 (2022), reh’g denied (Apr. 6, 2022), review denied (June 22, 2022)
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results