Newhall Employment Attorneys

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

About Newhall, California

Newhall is the southernmost and oldest community in the city of Santa Clarita, California. Prior to the 1987 consolidation of Canyon Country, Saugus, Newhall, and Valencia into the city of Santa Clarita, it was an unincorporated area. It was the first permanent town in the Santa Clarita Valley. It is situated in the Santa Clarita Valley and has a very rich history.

Early Inhabitants: Before European settlement, the Santa Clarita Valley, including the Newhall area, was inhabited by the Tataviam and Kitanemuk Native American tribes. These indigenous people had lived in the region for thousands of years.

Spanish and Mexican Period: In the late 18th century, Spanish settlers established missions and ranchos throughout California. The area that is now Newhall was part of the Rancho San Francisco land grant, awarded to Antonio del Valle in 1839. The rancho encompassed a significant portion of the Santa Clarita Valley.

American Ownership: After the Mexican-American War and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, California became a U.S. territory and later a state in 1850. The landownership patterns changed as ranchos were broken up and sold to private individuals.

Henry Newhall: The modern history of Newhall is closely associated with Henry Mayo Newhall, an enterprising businessman from San Francisco. In the 1870s, Newhall purchased a significant portion of the Rancho San Francisco land grant and began developing it.

Railroad Arrival: The arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the late 19th century was a pivotal moment in Newhall’s history. The railroad played a crucial role in transporting goods, including oil, from the region to markets in Los Angeles and beyond.

Newhall as a Transportation Hub: Newhall became a transportation hub, with the railroad and nearby highways facilitating trade and travel. It also served as a stop for travelers heading to Los Angeles and other parts of Southern California.

Development and Growth: Newhall saw continued development and growth throughout the 20th century. The area attracted businesses, residents, and visitors due to its strategic location and natural beauty.

Famous History: Newhall gained notoriety for the St. Francis Dam disaster of 1928. The dam’s collapse led to a devastating flood that affected the area and caused significant loss of life and property.

Annexation to Santa Clarita: In 1987, Newhall, along with several other communities, was incorporated into the newly formed city of Santa Clarita, which encompasses various neighborhoods and communities within the Santa Clarita Valley.

Historical Sites: Newhall has several historical sites and landmarks, including the William S. Hart Ranch and Museum, which was the home of the famous silent film actor William S. Hart. The Placerita Canyon Nature Center and the Oak of the Golden Dream, where gold was discovered in California in 1842, are also notable sites.

Today, Newhall remains a part of the city of Santa Clarita and continues to thrive as a vibrant community within the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. Its history is a testament to the region’s transformation from a rural ranching and transportation hub to a modern suburban community. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles which is minutes away from Newhall. We also have offices in Bakersfield, Orange, Oxnard, Riverside, and San Bernardino.  The Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. stands ready to provide legal services to both employees and employers in Newhall.

Are You Looking For The Best Wrongful Termination Lawyer in Newhall?

Locating the right attorney can indeed pose a challenge. A simple Google search for terms like “Newhall employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Newhall” often yields paid advertisements from legal professionals situated in neighboring regions. Relying solely on such paid promotions by non-local attorneys can make the task of identifying a suitable lawyer with the requisite expertise and experience quite daunting. The quest for an attorney well-versed in this specific field of law, proficient in handling such disputes, is more intricate than it might initially appear. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each of our attorneys boasts nearly two decades of experience. Our legal team has established a solid track record of success, representing both employers and employees effectively. We adhere to a philosophy that prioritizes quality over quantity. With offices conveniently located just a short distance from Newhall, we are readily available to offer the highest-caliber legal representation to Newhall residents.

We Handle All Kinds Of Employment Cases Including Those Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Christian v. Umpqua Bank, 984 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 2020)
A female former bank employee filed a Title VII action against her former employer, alleging claims of gender-based harassment and retaliation, asserting that a bank customer stalked and harassed her at the bank and that her employer failed to take effective action to address the harassment. The United States District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, and the employee appealed. On appeal the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that: (1) alleged incidents of harassment were required to be evaluated together in deciding hostile work environment claim; (2) alleged incidents in which employee did not have any direct, personal interactions with customer, along with evidence of interactions between customer and third persons were required to be considered; and (3) fact issues barred summary judgment in favor of employer.  The Court’s opinion stated in part as follows: “the district court held that Christian’s harassment claims failed as a matter of law because no reasonable juror could conclude the customer’s conduct was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. The court declined to consider much of the record evidence of misconduct because “seven months elapsed between” the harassment occurring in February 2014 and that occurring in September 2014, and because many of the incidents did not involve “direct, personal interactions” between Christian and the customer. Thus, the court accepted only one incident as actionable harassment—the customer’s visit to the bank in September 2014 to reopen his account—and concluded that, “[w]ithout more, … this single incident is not sufficient to constitute a hostile workplace.” The district court erred in three respects.
First, the court erred in isolating the harassing incidents of September 2014 from those of February 2014. They should be evaluated together. “The real social impact of workplace behavior often depends on a constellation of surrounding *810 circumstances, expectations, and relationships,” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81–82, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998), and “what might be an innocuous occurrence in some circumstances may, in the context of a pattern of discriminatory harassment, take on an altogether different character, causing a worker to feel demeaned, humiliated, or intimidated on account of her gender.” Draper v. Coeur Rochester, Inc., 147 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 1998). The harassment Christian endured in February involved “the same type” of conduct, “occurred relatively frequently,” and was perpetrated by the same individual as the harassment in September 2014. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 120–21, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002). Christian understandably experienced the harassment not as isolated and sporadic incidents but rather as an escalating pattern of behavior that caused her to feel afraid in her own workplace. We cannot say that a juror would not find that fear reasonable or the resulting environment hostile. The district court’s overly narrow approach—which ignored the reality “that a hostile work environment is ambient and persistent, and that it continues to exist between overt manifestations”—was error. Draper, 147 F.3d at 1108 n.1.
Second, the district court erred in declining to consider incidents in which Christian “did not have any direct, personal interactions with the [c]ustomer,” such as when he wrote her a letter describing her as his “soulmate,” sent her flowers, and watched her in the bank lobby. Title VII imposes no such requirement. In Ellison, for instance, we concluded that a letter sent to the plaintiff by her co-worker describing how he “had been ‘watching’ and ‘experiencing’ her” was actionable harassment. 924 F.2d at 880. That the plaintiff received the letter in the mail while on an out-of-state business trip—far from her harasser—had no bearing on our analysis. Id. at 874. Our obligation is to “consider all the circumstances,” Davis, 520 F.3d at 1095, including those incidents that do not involve verbal communication between the plaintiff and harasser, physical proximity, or physical or sexual touching.
Finally, the district court erred in neglecting to consider record evidence of interactions between the customer and third persons, such as the customer’s repeated visits to the Esther Short branch to “badger[ ] [Christian’s colleagues] about how he was going to get a date with [Christian].” “Offensive comments do not all need to be made directly to an employee for a work environment to be considered hostile.” Davis, 520 F.3d at 1095; see also Woods v. Graphic Commc’ns, 925 F.2d 1195, 1198, 1202 (9th Cir. 1991) (concluding the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive, even though the plaintiff “heard about most of the incidents through *811 other employees,” rather than being directly targeted); Dominguez-Curry, 424 F.3d at 1036. Christian learned from her colleagues that the customer was persistently contacting them to obtain information about her. That she did not witness the customer’s conduct firsthand is no matter: She heard his message loud and clear. Where, as here, a plaintiff becomes aware of harassing conduct directed at other persons, outside her presence, that conduct may form part of a hostile environment claim and must be considered.

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