Montebello Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to fight for the rights of workers in Montebello dealing with discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace. The firm also stands ready to provide small businesses in Montebello 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 Montebello, California

Montebello is a city located in southeast Los Angeles County.  It is home to more than 60,000 residents.  It covers approximately eight square miles and encompasses the following zip codes: 90640, 91755.  The colorful and romantic history of Montebello dates back to the days of the Franciscan Missionaries, Fathers Angel Somera and Pedro Cambon, who, on September 9, 1771, established the original San Gabriel Mission near where San Gabriel Boulevard now crosses the Rio Hondo River. The Mission was the third in a chain of 21 to be established under the direction of Father Junipero Serra. The Mission managed to flourish under hardships, but heavy rains eventually drove the founding fathers to its permanent location in San Gabriel in 1776. Originally an agricultural community, Montebello boasted having the ideal climate, productive soil, and an abundance of water. From the turn of the century and through the 1920’s, the area was famed for its production of flowers, vegetables, berries, and fruits. In 1912 the Montebello Woman’s Club sponsored Montebello’s first flower show in the high school auditorium. The discovery of oil by Standard Oil Company on the Anita Baldwin property in 1917 brought about a revolutionary change to Montebello. The agricultural hills soon became a major contributor to oil production. By 1920, Montebello oil fields were producing one-eighth of our state’s crude oil. On October 16, 1920, Montebello was incorporated as the 35th of the present cities in Los Angeles County. With offices in Burbank, Orange, and Riverside the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Montebello. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Montebello.

Finding The Best Montebello Employment Attorneys Has Never Been Easier

Finding the right labor lawyer in Montebello can indeed be a challenging task. Montebello is home to several law firms, each with its own unique approach and philosophy. It’s crucial to understand that not every employee attorney in Montebello is suited for every case. Some employment lawyers may opt for quick and straightforward, low-value settlements, while others may be willing to engage in a more extensive legal battle, ultimately aiming for a full-value resolution. Conducting an internet search for “employment lawyer Montebello” or “wrongful termination attorney in Montebello” often leads to numerous paid advertisements from lawyers who may lean toward the easier approach. The mission of the Montebello, 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 effort required. 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 forge with our clients often extend beyond the duration of their cases. Our Montebello 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 Montebello, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us today for a complimentary case evaluation. Your legal needs are our priority, and we stand ready to provide world-class service.

We Offer Services To Montebello Residents In Cases Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Television writers filed class actions against studios, networks, and talent agencies for age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and unfair competition law (UCL). The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles  dismissed the case and the writers appealed. The Court of Appeal, Boland, J., held that: 1. Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), provides that a Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) action may not be filed or maintained as a class action where the persons claiming to be aggrieved “have filed a civil class action in the federal courts alleging a comparable claim of employment discrimination” against the same defendants. We construe this provision to proscribe concurrent, not successive, class actions, and conclude it does not bar the writers who filed and dismissed claims in Wynn from filing a FEHA class action in state court. 2. The claims of “deterred applicants”—writers who did not apply for television writing opportunities or agency representation during the limitations period, allegedly because of a long-standing and long-known policy of discrimination against older writers—are not barred by FEHA’s one-year statute of limitations. 3. The writers have properly alleged classwide claims of a pattern or practice of age discrimination in violation of FEHA, and are not required to plead facts supporting individual prima facie cases of discriminatory refusal to hire as a predicate for their classwide claims.  4. Claims asserted by “deterred applicants” of a classwide pattern or practice of discrimination may not be dismissed at the pleading stage on the ground that statistics alleged in the federal complaint in Wynn—e.g., that writers over 40 comprised one-third or more of the writing staffs of most employers in 1997/1998—were inconsistent with viable deterred applicant claims. 5. The writers did not waive appellate review of their FEHA or Unruh Civil Rights Act class claims by declining to assert individual FEHA claims or refusing to amend their Unruh Civil Rights Act class claims in their second amended complaints.  6. The writers’ first amended complaints sufficiently pled a classwide claim against the talent agencies for aiding and abetting violations of FEHA by the employers. 7. Allegations that the talent agencies systematically refuse to represent older writers seeking television writing opportunities are cognizable under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. 8. Amendments to FEHA effective on January 1, 2003, adding age to the bases of discrimination constituting unlawful employment **37 practices by employment agencies, do not apply retroactively. 9. The trial court erred in ruling that the writers must allege potential competitive harm or likely consumer deception in order to state a claim under the unfair competition law. (Bus. & Prof.Code, §§ 17200 et seq.) 10. The trial court correctly concluded it has no authority under the unfair competition law to effectuate an injunctive decree through an award of classwide backpay.

Alch v. Superior Ct., 122 Cal. App. 4th 339, 351–52, 19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 29, 36–37 (2004)

 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: Failure to Accommodate
$100 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Bicycle Collision
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Pedestrian Collision