Moorpark Employment Attorneys

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

Moorpark, California

Moorpark is a city in the County of Ventura.  The city was founded in 1900. The town grew from just over 4,000 citizens in 1980 to over 25,000 by 1990. As of 2006, Moorpark was one of the fastest-growing cities in Ventura County. Moorpark was one of the first cities to run off commercial nuclear power in the entire world, and the second in the United States, Moorpark is home to more than 35,000 residents.  It covers approximately twelve square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 93020, and 93021. Moorpark’s  history is deeply rooted in agriculture, ranching, and the development of a tight-knit community.

Native Inhabitants: Before European settlement, the area now known as Moorpark was inhabited by the Chumash Native American tribe. They lived along the coast and in the surrounding valleys, including the Moorpark area, for thousands of years.

Spanish and Mexican Period: In the late 18th century, Spanish settlers and missionaries arrived in California. The land that is now Moorpark was part of various land grants, including the Rancho Simi grant. Rancho Simi covered a vast area, and it included the Moorpark region.

American Ownership: After the Mexican-American War and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, California became part of the United States. Landownership changed, and the Rancho Simi grant was gradually sold off to private individuals.

Early Settlement: In the late 19th century, the area saw the establishment of a small community known as “Moorpark” near the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. The name “Moorpark” likely came from a combination of “Moor” (referring to the moorland terrain) and “park” (alluding to the area’s picturesque surroundings).

Agriculture and Ranching: Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Moorpark’s economy was primarily based on agriculture and ranching. Citrus groves, apricot orchards, and walnut trees thrived in the region.

Development of a Town: Moorpark gradually developed as a town with the construction of schools, churches, and a town hall. It was officially incorporated as a city on July 1, 1983.

Education: Moorpark has a strong educational history. Moorpark College, part of the Ventura County Community College District, was founded in 1967 and serves as a significant educational institution in the area.

Military History: During World War II, Moorpark was home to the U.S. Navy’s Naval Air Station (NAS) Moorpark. The base played a vital role in training pilots and aircrew members during the war.

Modern Era: In recent years, Moorpark has experienced growth and development while maintaining its small-town charm. The city has focused on preserving open spaces and maintaining a balance between residential, commercial, and agricultural areas.

Agricultural Heritage: Moorpark continues to celebrate its agricultural heritage with events like the Apricot Festival, which honors the city’s history of apricot farming.

Community Engagement: Moorpark has a strong sense of community, with residents actively participating in local events, organizations, and civic activities.

Local Economy: While agriculture remains part of Moorpark’s economy, the city has diversified over the years, with the growth of businesses, manufacturing, and retail establishments.

Moorpark’s history is a testament to its transformation from an agricultural settlement to a vibrant, family-friendly city that embraces its heritage while adapting to the demands of the modern era. It remains a welcoming and close-knit community in Ventura County, California.  The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Burbank which is minutes away from Moorpark. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide legal services to both employees and employers in Moorpark.

Finding The Best Employment Lawyer in Moorpark Has Never Been Easier

Moorpark, as a thriving community, provides its residents with a multitude of choices when it comes to legal representation. Conducting an online search for “Moorpark employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Moorpark” often results in a list of paid advertisements from employment lawyers originating from various locations. However, the challenge lies in identifying the right attorney with the necessary skills and experience, especially when your decision primarily hinges on a paid internet advertisement. For individuals in Moorpark facing significant legal issues and real-world challenges within the field of employment law, it can indeed be a daunting task to determine whether a particular attorney possesses the depth of knowledge and experience required to adeptly handle employment trials and litigation, particularly when their primary source of information is an advertisement. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each attorney boasts nearly two decades of invaluable experience. Our legal team has consistently achieved favorable outcomes for both employees and employers, establishing a well-documented 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 Moorpark, we are fully prepared to offer Moorpark residents top-tier legal representation. Your legal needs are our priority, and we stand ready to provide world-class service to the residents of Moorpark.

We Offer First Class Legal Representiation To Moorpark Residents In Cases Involving:

Featured Employment Case

A former United States Postal Service (USPS) employee, an Evangelical Christian who believed for religious reasons that Sunday should be devoted to worship and rest, brought action against the Postmaster General under Title VII, alleging the Postal Service failed to make reasonable accommodations for his Sunday Sabbath practice and instead disciplined him for failing to work as a letter carrier on Sundays. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Jeffrey L. Schmehl, J., 2021 WL 1264030, granted summary judgment to the Postmaster, and employee appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Shwartz, Circuit Judge, 35 F.4th 162, affirmed. Certiorari was granted. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court, Justice Alito, held that to defend denial of a religious accommodation under Title VII, an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business; abrogating Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Walmart Stores East, L.P., 992 F.3d 656; Tagore v. U.S., 735 F.3d 324; Wagner v. Saint Joseph’s/Candler Health System, Inc., 2022 WL 905551; Camara v. Epps Air Service, Inc., 292 F. Supp. 3d 1314; El-Amin v. First Transit, Inc., 2005 WL 1118175; E.E.O.C. v. Sambo’s of Georgia, Inc., 530 F.Supp. 86. We hold that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as that phrase is used in common parlance, does not suffice to establish “undue hardship” under Title VII. Hardison cannot be reduced to that one phrase. In describing an employer’s “undue hardship” defense, Hardison referred repeatedly to “substantial” burdens, and that formulation better explains the decision. We therefore, like the parties, understand Hardison to mean that “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 61–62 (argument of Solicitor General). This fact-specific inquiry comports with both Hardison and the meaning of “undue hardship” in ordinary speech.  In part the opinion states as follows:  “As we have explained, we do not write on a blank slate in determining what an employer must prove to defend a denial of a religious accommodation, but we think it reasonable to begin with Title VII’s text. After all, as we have stressed over and over again in recent years, statutory interpretation must “begi[n] with,” and ultimately heed, what a statute actually says. National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense, 583 U. S. 109, ––––, 138 S.Ct. 617, 631, 199 L.Ed.2d 501 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U. S. 69, 74, 143 S.Ct. 665, 214 L.Ed.2d 434 (2023); Intel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. Sulyma, 589 U. S. ––––, –––– – ––––, ––––, 140 S.Ct. 768, 775–776, 777–778, 206 L.Ed.2d 103 (2020).Here, the key statutory term is “undue hardship.” In common parlance, a “hardship” is, at a minimum, “something hard to bear.” Random House Dictionary of the English Language 646 (1966) (Random House). Other definitions go further. See, e.g., Webster’s Third *469 New International Dictionary 1033 (1971) (Webster’s Third) (“something that causes or entails suffering or privation”); American Heritage Dictionary 601 (1969) (American Heritage) (“[e]xtreme privation; adversity; suffering”); Black’s Law Dictionary, at 646 (“privation, suffering, adversity”). But under any definition, a hardship is more severe than a mere burden. So even if Title VII said only that an employer need not be made to suffer a “hardship,” an employer could not escape liability simply by showing that an accommodation would impose some sort of additional costs. Those costs would have to rise to the level of hardship, and adding the modifier “undue” means that the requisite burden, privation, or adversity must rise to an “excessive” or “unjustifiable” level. Random House 1547; see, e.g., Webster’s Third 2492 (“inappropriate,” “unsuited,” or “exceeding or violating propriety or fitness”); American Heritage 1398 (“excessive”). The Government agrees, noting that “ ‘undue hardship means something greater than hardship.’ ” Brief for United States 30; see id., at 39 (arguing that “accommodations should be assessed while ‘keep[ing] in mind both words in the key phrase of the actual statutory text: “undue” and “hardship” ’ ” **2295 (quoting Adeyeye v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 721 F.3d 444, 456 (C.A.7 2013)).  When “undue hardship” is understood in this way, it means something very different from a burden that is merely more than de minimis, i.e., something that is “very small or trifling.” Black’s Law Dictionary, at 388. So considering ordinary meaning while taking Hardison as a given, we are pointed toward something closer to Hardison’s references to “substantial additional costs” or “substantial expenditures.” 432 U.S. at 83, n. 14, 97 S.Ct. 2264.”

Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447, 143 S. Ct. 2279, 216 L. Ed. 2d 1041 (2023)

 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