Mission Viejo Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in Mission Viejo, California. Mission Viejo, nestled in Orange County, California, is a vibrant city with a population of over 92,000 residents. Covering approximately eighteen square miles, it encompasses the following zip codes: 92691, 92692, and 92694. The city’s name, “Mission Viejo,” is derived from the Spanish phrase “Mision Vieja,” which translates to “Old Mission.” It boasts a suburban character, with a landscape dominated by residential properties, offices, and businesses. The city takes pride in its tree-lined neighborhoods, earning recognition from the National Arbor Day Foundation. Its name pays homage to Rancho Mission Viejo, a significant Spanish land grant upon which the community was established. Historically, Mission Viejo’s terrain was primarily used for cattle and sheep grazing due to its limited suitability for farming. This city was among the last areas of Orange County to undergo urbanization, owing to its complex geology. In the 1960s, visionary urban planner Donald Bren, who later became president of the Irvine Company, devised a master plan that strategically placed roads in valleys and houses on hills, harmonizing with the area’s topography. This plan proved successful, and by 1980, much of Mission Viejo had been developed. During the late 1970s and 1980s, the demand for houses in Mission Viejo was so high that housing tracts frequently sold out before construction even commenced. The city’s houses and shopping centers are characterized by a consistent Spanish mission style, featuring “adobe”-like stucco walls and barrel-tile roofs.
Your Quest For The Best Employment Lawyers in Mission Viejo Is Over
Due to its location and vibrant community, Mission Viejo offers a wide array of choices when it comes to legal representation. Countless lawyers and law firms extend their services to Mission Viejo residents, with some displaying a zeal that might lead them to figuratively break down your door and attempt a sales pitch right in your living room. For both employers and employees in Mission Viejo navigating complex legal issues and real-world challenges within the realm of employment law, the primary challenge lies in identifying the ideal attorney for their unique situation. 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 assistance, conducting a search for “Mission Viejo employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Mission Viejo” often yields search results overflowing with paid advertisements from lawyers known for their billboard-sized presence. In certain cases, a billboard lawyer may indeed be an excellent choice. However, there are situations that demand top-tier representation from seasoned legal counsel. Each attorney at the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. boasts nearly two decades of experience. Our legal team has an unassailable track record of success, consistently delivering favorable outcomes for both employers and employees. Our firm’s guiding principle revolves around prioritizing quality over quantity. Our attorneys prefer to invest their time in the courtroom, passionately advocating for their clients’ rights, rather than in a recording studio crafting catchy radio ads. We don’t 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 offices strategically located in Orange, Burbank, and Riverside, the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. is just minutes away from Mission Viejo. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Mission Viejo.
Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. Can Help Mission Viejo Residents With:
Featured Employment Case
A former prison employee sued his employer, alleging discrimination, failure to engage in interactive process, retaliation, harassment based on disability, and failure to accommodate disabilities under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The former prison employee appealed. The Court of Appeal decided, among other things, that the the employee failed to demonstrate that employer subjected him to adverse employment action, as necessary to establish discrimination and retaliation claims under FEHA, failed to establish that his supervisor’s conduct constituted harassment under FEHA, and that the employer’s denial of employee’s requests for accommodation did not constitute harassment under FEHA. The Court’s opinion states in part as follows; An “adverse employment action” is one that “materially affects the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” (Yanowitz, supra, 36 Cal.4th at pp. 1036, 1051, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 116 P.3d 1123.) “In the case of an institutional or corporate employer, the institution or corporation itself must have taken some official action with respect to the employee, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, adverse job assignment, significant change in compensation or benefits, or official disciplinary action.” (Roby v. McKesson Corp. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 686, 706, 708, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 219 P.3d 749 (Roby) [demoting employee to answering the office telephones during office parties and firing employee constituted adverse employment actions].) An adverse employment action refers not only to “ultimate employment actions such as termination or demotion, but also … actions that are reasonably likely to adversely and materially affect an employee’s job performance or opportunity for advancement.” (Yanowitz, at p. 1054, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 116 P.3d 1123.) That said, “[m]inor or relatively trivial adverse actions or conduct by employers or fellow employees that, from an objective perspective, are reasonably likely to do no more than anger or upset an employee cannot properly be viewed as materially affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment and are not actionable.” (Ibid.).
The opinion also provides as follows: To prevail on a harassment claim under FEHA, a plaintiff must produce evidence they were subjected to “offensive comments or other abusive conduct” that is (1) based on a “protected characteristic” (here, a claimed disability) and (2) “sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of [his] employment.” (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 871, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 732 (Serri).) To constitute harassment, the conduct must be so objectively severe or pervasive as “ ‘to create a hostile or abusive working environment.’ ” (Id. at p. 870, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 732.) Factors to consider in this context include the frequency of the conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interferes with the employee’s work performance. (Ibid.) In addition, disability harassment is distinguishable from discrimination. (Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 869, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 732.) “[D]iscrimination refers to bias in the exercise of official actions on behalf of the employer, and harassment refers to bias that is expressed or communicated through interpersonal relations in the workplace.” (Ibid., italics added.) “[H]arassment focuses on situations in which the social environment of the workplace becomes intolerable because the harassment (whether verbal, physical, or visual) communicates an offensive message to the harassed employee.” (Roby, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 706, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 219 P.3d 749.) Put differently, “[h]arassment claims are based on a type of conduct that is avoidable and unnecessary to job performance. No supervisory employee needs to use slurs or derogatory drawings, to physically interfere with freedom of movement, to engage in unwanted sexual advances, etc., in order to carry out the legitimate objectives of personnel management. Every supervisory employee can insulate himself or herself from claims of harassment by refraining from such conduct. An individual supervisory employee cannot, however, refrain from engaging in the type of conduct which could later give rise to a discrimination claim. Making personnel decisions is an inherent and unavoidable part of the supervisory function.” (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 646 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 499, 957 P.2d 1333], italics added.) “When the harasser is a supervisor, the employer is strictly liable for the supervisor’s actions. (Roby, at p. 707, 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 219 P.3d 749.)
Doe v. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 43 Cal. App. 5th 721, 255 Cal. Rptr. 3d 910 (2019)
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results