Murrieta Employment Attorneys

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

Murrieta, California

Murrieta is a city located in Riverside County. Murrieta is home to more than 110,000 residents. It covers approximately thirty three square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 92562, 92563, and 92564. The area now known as Murrieta was magnificent land blessed with verdant open spaces dotted with towering oak trees, sycamores, a valley of rich grasses and natural hot springs. It reminded Esequial Murrieta of his native Spain, so he bought 52,000 acres, fully intending to move his sheep ranching operation here from central California. But he never did, going back to the Santurtzi area of Spain to marry and turning his holdings over to younger brother Juan, who brought a flock of some 100,000 sheep to the valley. The year was 1873. And that was the start of something that would grow to be very big. In 1882, the Southern California Railroad laid tracks linking the valley to its southern transcontinental route. By 1890, Murrieta had experienced its first boom, the population reaching 800, big for those days. The natural springs that proved a cleansing dip for Juan’s flock later were instrumental in bringing international renown to the community as the Murrieta Hot Springs Resort flourished during the first half of the 1900s. In 1935, the trains stopped running and the boom Murrieta had been enjoying went bust. The calm lasted for 50 years until a new community sprouted almost overnight and began a period of phenomenal growth. Extending Interstate 15 through the valley was the impetus for building what was at that time extremely affordable housing. When Murrieta officially became a city on July 1, 1991, it was already home to more than 24,000 residents. Compare that to the 2,200 estimated to have been living here in 1980. By 2005, more than 85,000 people had moved to the community, making it one of the five largest in Riverside County. The natural scenic beauty of the area and what is still by California standards reasonably priced housing continues to attract significant numbers of residents and businesses who are finding Murrieta a great place to grow. Those living in the community find distinguished schools, abundant recreation, excellent medical facilities, expanding employment opportunities, and one of the lowest crime rates in Southern California. And entrepreneurs find a market growing larger by the day, above average household incomes, a skilled labor force, and a business-friendly city hall. It’s a community with a past and vision for its future. One that welcomes challenges, takes risks, embraces opportunity.

The Best Employment Lawyers in Murrieta

Murrieta is undoubtedly a city teeming with legal options for its residents. The legal landscape here is characterized by a multitude of lawyers and law firms, all vying for the attention of Murrieta’s populace. Some of them are so zealous in their pursuit that they might as well break down your door and make their sales pitch right in your living room. However, when individuals in Murrieta find themselves facing significant legal issues, especially those encompassing the intricate realm of employment law, the challenge they encounter lies in identifying the lawyer who is genuinely the right fit for their unique circumstances. This endeavor is further complicated by the ceaseless barrage of attention-grabbing radio advertisements and clichéd posters that adorn billboards, buses, and street benches across the city. Many people turn to online searches to seek legal counsel, but a search for “Murrieta employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Murrieta” often yields search results inundated with paid advertisements from lawyers employing these billboard marketing tactics. While billboard lawyers may indeed serve well for specific cases, there are unquestionably scenarios that demand top-tier representation from seasoned legal professionals. This is precisely where the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. distinguishes itself. Each attorney at our firm brings nearly two decades of experience to the table, backed by a proven track record of success in representing both employers and employees. Our approach values quality over quantity. Rather than allocating our resources to record catchy radio ads or inundate the public space with billboards, our lawyers prefer to devote their time to 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 willing to provide client references upon request. You can also explore our online reviews, which frequently serve as testament to our unwavering commitment to providing outstanding legal services. With strategically positioned offices in San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is conveniently situated just minutes away from Murrieta. Our employment lawyers are poised and ready to deliver world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Murrieta, ensuring that their legal needs are met with the utmost professionalism and skill. We are dedicated 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 Murrieta Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

A prospective permanent employee brought action against prospective employer for religious creed discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), alleging that defendant withdrew its employment offer when plaintiff, based on his veganism, refused to be vaccinated with a mumps vaccine which was grown in chicken embryos. The Superior Court sustained defendant’s general demurrer without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal held that plaintiff’s veganism was not a “religious creed.” The Court’s opinion states in part as follows: “We conclude that the best way to assess whether an FEHA claimant’s “beliefs, observances, or practices” have “a place of importance parallel to that of traditionally recognized religions,” as required by regulation 7293.1, is to utilize the objective analysis enunciated by the Third, Ninth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits in Africa, Wiggins, Alvarado, and Meyers. Flexible application of the objective guidelines identified in those cases will enable courts and administrative agencies to make the sometimes subtle distinction between a religion and a secular belief system. As noted previously, the guidelines are: “First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.” (Africa v. Com. of Pa., supra, 662 F.2d at p. 1032, fn. omitted.) We consider plaintiff’s allegations in light of these three indicia. We do not question plaintiff’s allegation that his beliefs are sincerely held; it is presumed as a matter of law that they are. However, we disregard conclusory *70 allegations, for example, that plaintiff’s beliefs “occupy a place in [his] life parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious individuals adhering to the Christian, Jewish or Muslim Faiths.” (Aubry v. Tri–City Hospital Dist., supra, 2 Cal.4th at pp. 966–967, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 92, 831 P.2d 317; Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125, 271 Cal.Rptr. 146, 793 P.2d 479.) First, plaintiff believes “that all living beings must be valued equally and that it is immoral and unethical for humans to kill and exploit animals even for food, clothing and the testing of product safety for humans”; further, it is “a violation of natural law” to transgress this belief. There is no allegation or judicially noticeable evidence plaintiff’s belief system addresses fundamental or ultimate questions. There is no claim that veganism speaks to: the meaning of human existence; the purpose of life; theories of humankind’s nature or its place in the universe; matters of human life and death; or the exercise of faith. There is no apparent spiritual or otherworldly component to plaintiff’s beliefs. Rather, plaintiff alleges a moral and ethical creed limited to the single subject of highly valuing animal life and ordering one’s life based on that perspective. While veganism compels plaintiff to live in accord with strict dictates of behavior, it reflects a moral and secular, rather than religious, philosophy. (Africa v. Com. of Pa., supra, 662 F.2d at p. 1033; Carpenter v. Wilkinson (N.D.Ohio 1996) 946 F.Supp. 522, 526.) Second, while plaintiff’s belief system governs his behavior in wide-ranging respects, including the food he eats, the clothes he wears, and the products he uses, it is not sufficiently comprehensive in nature to fall within the provisions of regulation 7293.1. Plaintiff does not assert that his belief system derives from a power or being or faith to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else depends. (United States v. Seeger, supra, 380 U.S. at p. 176, 85 S.Ct. 850; Africa v. Com. of Pa., supra, 662 F.2d at p. 1031.) Third, though not determinative, no formal or external signs of a religion are present. There are no: teachers or leaders; services or ceremonies; **686 structure or organization; orders of worship or articles of faith; or holidays. (Alvarado v. City of San Jose, supra, 94 F.3d at p. 1230; Africa v. Com. of Pa., supra, 662 F.2d at pp. 1035–1036.) Absent a broader, more comprehensive scope, extending to ultimate questions, it cannot be said that plaintiff’s veganism falls within the scope of regulation 7293.1. Rather, plaintiff’s veganism is a personal philosophy, albeit shared by many others, and a way of life. As Associate Justice Werdegar has aptly noted, religious belief is other than “a philosophy or way of life.” (Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 1166, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 700, 913 P.2d 909.) Therefore, plaintiff’s veganism is not a religious creed within the meaning of the FEHA. We quite obviously do not resolve the question of *71 whether a vegan lifestyle that results from a religious belief otherwise meeting the standard in regulation 7293.1 is subject to FEHA coverage.”

Friedman v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 102 Cal. App. 4th 39, 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 663 (2002), as modified (Sept. 24, 2002)

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

$210 ThousandEmployment: Family Leave Retaliation

$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: Religious Discrimination

$100 ThousandEmployment: Failure to Accommodate

$100 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination

$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Bicycle Collision

$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Pedestrian Collision

MORE RESULTS