Moreno Valley Employment Attorneys

The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in Moreno Valley, California.

Moreno Valley, California

Moreno Valley is a city located in Riverside County.  Moreno Valley is home to more than 200,000 residents.  It covers approximately fifty square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 92551, 92552, 92553, 92554, 92555, 92556, 92557.  An area once comprised of three rural communities, the City of Moreno Valley, incorporated in 1984, has twice emerged as one of the fastest growing cities in the US.  While the City represents one of the most dynamic economic market potentials in contemporary California, this has not always been the case. When California was admitted to the United States as a state in 1850, Americans began to move into the area. Farmers began to occupy the area, relying upon water from Frank E. Brown’s Bear Valley Land and Water Company. Beginning in 1883, the company collected and pumped water from Bear Valley in the San Bernardino Mountains to the north. The area first acquired its current name, Moreno Valley, at this time, referring to Frank Brown (moreno is Spanish for “brown” or “brunet”). In 1899, the city of Redlands won a lawsuit in which the city claimed eminent domain over the Bear Valley water. The resulting loss of service forced most of the area’s inhabitants to move. The revival of the Moreno Valley area began in 1918, when the United States Air Force (then the United States Army Air Service) constructed March Field on the outskirts of Riverside as part of its World War I expansion. March Field was initially used to train fighter pilots. Although it was closed in 1922, it was reopened in 1927 and eventually became a full Air Force base. By 1990, Moreno Valley had grown to become the second-largest city in Riverside County with a population of approximately 118,000. This growth continued until about 1992. In the 1990s, the Moreno Valley economy deteriorated as March Air Force Base was also downsized to its present status as March Air Reserve Base. By the early 2000s, the soaring cost of living in nearby Los Angeles County and Orange County helped make the less developed portions of the Inland Empire an attractive place for business and home construction.

The Best Employment Lawyers in Moreno Valley

Moreno Valley residents are indeed fortunate to have a plethora of choices when it comes to legal services. The city boasts numerous lawyers and law firms, all vying for the attention of its residents. Some may seem so eager to serve that they’d break down your door and rush into your living room to make their case. However, when individuals in Moreno Valley find themselves grappling with serious legal matters, particularly in the complex arena of employment law, the challenge lies in determining which lawyer is truly the right fit for their unique needs. This challenge is compounded by the constant deluge of gimmicky radio ads and cheesy posters that adorn billboards, buses, and street benches throughout the city. Most people turn to online searches to find legal representation, but a search for “Moreno Valley employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Moreno Valley” often yields search results flooded with  paid advertisements from lawyers who employ these billboard marketing tactics. While billboard lawyers may be suitable for specific cases, there are undoubtedly situations that necessitate top-tier representation from seasoned legal professionals. This is precisely where the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. sets itself apart. Each attorney at our firm brings nearly two decades of experience to the table, boasting a proven track record of success in representing both employers and employees. Our approach places a premium on quality over quantity. Rather than allocating our resources to recording catchy radio ads or saturating the public space with billboards, our lawyers prefer to dedicate their time to the courtroom, passionately advocating for our clients’ rights. We understand that you shouldn’t merely take our word for it, which is why we are more than willing to provide client references upon request. You can also explore our online reviews, which often serve as testaments to our unwavering commitment to providing exceptional legal services. With strategically located offices in San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is conveniently positioned just minutes away from Moreno Valley. Our employment lawyers are poised and prepared to deliver world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Moreno Valley, 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 Moreno Valley Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

California Fair Emp. & Hous. Com. v. Gemini Aluminum Corp., 122 Cal. App. 4th 1004 (2004)

In 1997, Lester Young filed a religious discrimination complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the Department) against his former employer, Gemini Aluminum Corporation. The Department issued an accusation, and then a first amended accusation in January 2001. Gemini contested the accusation, and the matter was heard by an administrative hearing officer in January and February 2001. The Commission reviewed the evidence, declined to adopt the hearing officer’s decision, and issued its own decision on January 10, 2002.  The Commission found that Gemini had discriminated against Young by failing to accommodate his religious beliefs, that it had failed to prevent discrimination, and that it had retaliated against Young for protesting the discrimination, all in violation of Government Code section 12940. Gemini filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the Los Angeles County Superior Court to overturn the decision of the Commission. The Superior Court granted the petition and issued a writ directing the Commission to vacate its decision. The Department appealed from the judgment, and Gemini appeals from the Superior Court’s denial of its request for attorney fees. In a separate motion, Gemini moved to dismiss the Department’s appeal, on the ground of untimeliness. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court erred.  The Court’s opinion states in part as follows:  Under California law, an employer is required to accommodate not just a religious belief, but also a religious observance, if reasonably possible without undue hardship. (§ 12940, subd. (l).) There is nothing in the language of the statute that obligates an employer to accommodate only those religious practices that are required by the tenets of the employee’s religion, or that amount to a “temporal mandate” of the religion. Gemini has taken that expression from Tiano v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. (9th Cir.1998) 139 F.3d 679, 682 (Tiano ), a case arising out of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 United States Code sections 2000e et seq. (Title VII) We have found no other published opinion relating to religious discrimination in which the expression, “temporal mandate,” appears. In Tiano the employee, a salesperson, requested time off in October to attend a pilgrimage to Medjugorje, Yugoslavia. The request was denied because the company was having a sale that month and the company had established a “no leave” policy. In connection with her discrimination claim, the employee testified that she was a devout Catholic and had a “ ‘calling from God’ ” to attend a pilgrimage to Medjugorje where it was said that the Virgin Mary appeared. (Tiano, supra, 139 F.3d at p. 680.) She also testified, “I felt I was called to go…. I felt that from deep in my heart that I was called. I had to be there at that time.” (Id. at p. 682, italics **912 added.) The trier of fact found that the employee held a bona fide religious belief, which included a temporal mandate, that she be allowed to carry out the pilgrimage at that particular time and denial of her request resulted in religious discrimination. The Ninth Circuit pointed out there was no evidence that the Catholic Church had designated Medjugorje as an official pilgrimage site or advocated the employee’s pilgrimage and the employee’s testimony was not corroborated, but consisted of a “lone unilateral statement.” (Tiano, supra, 139 F.3d at p. 682.) It further noted that she filed her complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission only after learning that her ticket was not refundable. The Ninth Circuit concluded there was insufficient evidence supporting the finding of a “temporal mandate” requiring the employee to take the pilgrimage at that particular time. (Ibid.) Tiano is alone in ruling that Title VII requires proof of a “temporal mandate” under the tenets of an employee’s particular religion. The relevant inquiry is the sincerity, not the verity of the employee’s religious beliefs. *1014 Philbrook v. Ansonia Bd. of Educ. (2d Cir.1985) 757 F.2d 476, affd. on other grounds (1986) 479 U.S. 60, 107 S.Ct. 367, 93 L.Ed.2d 305.) “ ‘[T]o restrict the act to those practices which are mandated or prohibited by a tenet of the religion, would involve the court in determining not only what are the tenets of a particular religion, … but would frequently require the courts to decide whether a particular practice is or is not required by the tenets of the religion…. [S]uch a judicial determination [would] be irreconcilable with the warning issued by the Supreme Court in Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67, 70 [73 S.Ct. 526, 527, 97 L.Ed. 828] (1953), ‘[I]t is no business of courts to say … what is a religious practice or activity.’ [Citations.]” (Heller v. EBB Auto Co. (9th Cir.1993) 8 F.3d 1433, 1438.) Even though we do not agree that proof of a “temporal mandate” is necessary to establish religious discrimination, the evidence here does support one. Young testified that he believed that the Jehovah’s Witness convention was a form of worship and religious study, that it was his responsibility to attend, and that he had regularly attended in the past. His daughter testified that each congregation was encouraged by the church to attend the convention set for that particular congregation, here June 27 and 28, and that she, her father, and other family members had done so since 1983. The Commission apparently credited this testimony, and we must accept its resolution of that issue. (See Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., supra, 218 Cal.App.3d at p. 531, 267 Cal.Rptr. 158.)