Newbury Park Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is fully prepared to advocate for the rights of Newbury Park’s workforce facing issues such as workplace discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or any unlawful workplace practices. Additionally, our firm is well-equipped to offer cost-effective and practical resolutions to employment law challenges for small businesses in the Newbury Park area. With our extensive experience in handling employment disputes from various perspectives, we possess a unique understanding of our adversaries’ viewpoints, which greatly contributes to achieving the most favorable results.

About Newbury Park, California

Newbury Park is a community located in the western portion of Thousand Oaks, in the County of Ventura. Newbury Park is named after Egbert Starr Newbury, the founder of Newbury Park,[who was also the first postmaster in the Conejo Valley in 1875.Egbert Starr Newbury called his ranch here “Newbury Park”, which became the name for the entire town.  Newbury Park was a more established and older community than Thousand Oaks at the beginning of the 20th century. Prior to the 1960s, Newbury Park was never incorporated as its own city or municipality, it was unincorporated areas of Ventura County with little development.  Between 1950 and 1970, the Conejo Valley experienced a population boom.  Newbury Park became part of Thousand Oaks by community vote in the 1960s. Thousand Oaks became a city in October 1964. The City of Thousand Oaks was formally established on September 29, 1964, and throughout the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, most Newbury Park land was annexed by the City of Thousand Oaks. Newbury Park is home to almost 30,000 residents.  It covers approximately twenty one square miles and encompasses the following zip codes: 91320 and 91319.

Generally speaking Newbury Park, California, is a suburban area known for its residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, and proximity to other business hubs in Southern California. However, there may be some notable companies or employers in and around the Newbury Park area, which could include:

Amgen: While not headquartered in Newbury Park, Amgen is a biotechnology company with a significant presence in the area. They have research and development facilities and employees in nearby Thousand Oaks.

Sage Publications: Sage Publications, a well-known academic publishing company, is headquartered in Thousand Oaks, which is near Newbury Park.

Financial and Healthcare Institutions: Some local banks, credit unions, and healthcare providers may have a presence in Newbury Park.

Retail and Service Businesses: Newbury Park has a mix of small and medium-sized businesses, including retail stores, restaurants, and various service providers.

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Burbank which is minutes away from Newbury Park.  Thus, our lawyers stand ready to serve employees and employers in Newbury Park with all their employment law needs.

Your Search For The Best Newbury Park Employment Attorneys Is Over

Finding the right labor lawyer in Newbury Park can indeed be a challenging endeavor. Newbury Park is home to numerous law firms, each with its own distinct approach and philosophy. It’s crucial to recognize that not every employee attorney in Newbury Park is well-suited for every case. Some employment lawyers may lean towards quick and straightforward, low-value settlements, while others may be more inclined to engage in a protracted legal battle, ultimately aiming for a full-value resolution.

Conducting an internet search for “Newbury Park employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Newbury Park” often leads to a list of paid advertisements from lawyers who may favor the easier approach.

The mission of the Newbury Park, California labor lawyers at the Akopyan Law Firm is to secure the best possible outcome for each client, irrespective 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 cultivate with our clients often extend beyond the duration of their cases. Our Newbury Park 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 Newbury Park, 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 Can Vigorously Protect The Rights of Newbury Park Residents In Cases Invovling:

Featured Employment Case

Three employees terminated in reductions in force (RIFs) sued the employer under Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Robert C. Broomfield, J., entered summary judgment for employer. The employees appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) with respect to ADEA disparate treatment claims, employees failed to rebut employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating them; (2) District Court was not required to allow employees to proceed on disparate treatment claims at summary judgment stage; (3) District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying employees’ motions to amend pleadings to add disparate impact claims; (4) employer did not discriminate against two white male employees on basis of race or sex; (5) District Court did not abuse its discretion in severing three employees’ claims from those of seven coemployees; and (6) District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sanction employer for its delays in producing documents.  Importantly, the Court’s opinion noted as follows: To establish a violation of ADEA under the disparate treatment theory of liability, employees must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and, if they do so, the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.  Once an employer articulates a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision in an ADEA action, the employees must demonstrate that the employer’s alleged reason is a pretext for another motive which is discriminatory. Despite the burden shifting in an ADEA disparate treatment action, the ultimate burden of proof remains always on the former employees to show that the former employer intentionally discriminated because of their age.  To establish a prima facie ADEA case using circumstantial evidence, employees must demonstrate that they were: (1) members of the protected class, that is, at least age 40; (2) performing their jobs satisfactorily; (3) discharged; and (4) replaced by substantially younger employees with equal or inferior qualifications.Where a discharge results from a general reduction in workforce, discharged employees seeking to make out a prima facie ADEA claim need not show that they were replaced; rather they need show through circumstantial, statistical, or direct evidence that the discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of age discrimination. Employees discharged as a result of a general reduction in workforce can establish an inference of age discrimination by showing the employer had a continuing need for their skills and services in that their various duties were still being performed, or by showing that others not in their protected class were treated more favorably. In an ADEA action, a reduction in force (RIF) is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for laying off an employee.

Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000)

 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