North Hollywood Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. represents employers and employees in North Hollywood, California, in employment law litigation and trials.

North Hollywood Labor Law Firm

North Hollywood is a neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles.  The neighborhood is located in the east San Fernando Valley.  Although North Hollywood covers an area which is less than six square miles, it is home to almost ninety thousand residents, making it one of the most densely populated areas in the County of Los Angeles. North Hollywood was once part of the vast landholdings of the Mission San Fernando Rey de España. When Mexico won independence from Spain in 1821, the land became part of the Mexican state of Alta California. In 1869 the land was sold to an agricultural group led by Issac B. Lankershim.  In 1873, Issac’s son and his future son-in-law, Issac Newton Van Nuys came to the Valley and took over management of the property.  The town was re-named Lankershim in 1896.  The next major development would come with the construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, completed in 1913. Several historic names, including Moses Hazeltine Sherman, HJ Whitley, Harry Chandler and others led the development of the housing boom of the 1910’s and 1920’s, mostly on land west of North Hollywood. Valley farmers offered to buy the incoming water from the aqueduct, but federal law prohibited the City from selling outside the City limits. One by one, different communities voted to be incorporated into the city, with San Fernando voting in 1915 and Lankershim voting in 1923. Eventually, the farms and orchards would give way to housing development tracts. In 1927, the area was renamed from Lankershim to North Hollywood in an effort to capitalize on the glamour of Hollywood in the land and real-estate boom.  Lankershim Blvd. around Magnolia Blvd. was the heart of the town of Lankershim and of North Hollywood and until the mid-1950s boasted the largest concentration of retail stores, banks, restaurants, and entertainment. The opening of North Hollywood station in 2000, establishment and success of the NoHo Arts District in the old “downtown”, and repurposing of disused lots such as Laurel Plaza into NOHO West, has revitalized the heart of North Hollywood.   North Hollywood coves the following zip codes: 91601, 91602, 91603, 91604, 91605, 91606, 91607, 91608, 91609, 91610, 91611, 91612, 91614, 91615, 91616, 91617, and 91618. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in the City of Los Angeles which is connected to North Hollywood. Our main office in Los Angeles is literally minutes away from North Hollywood, which allows us to provide legal services to employees and employers in North Hollywood, California.

North Hollywood Employment Laws

The employment relationship between employers and employees in North Hollywood is governed by a several distinct sets of local, state, and federal law.  Local laws governing places of employment in the neighborhood of North Hollywood include, but are not limited to the City of Los Angeles Wage Ordinance.  State laws governing the workplace in North Hollywood include, the California Constitution, the California Labor Code, the California Government Code, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), and the California Business & Professions Code.  Federal laws governing the workplace in North Hollywood include but are not limited to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act, (“ADA”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).

The Best Employment Law Lawyers for North Hollywood

In North Hollywood, California, finding the best employment attorney can indeed be a daunting task, given the vast number of options available in this bustling metropolitan area. North Hollywood is home to a diverse array of law firms offering legal services to its residents, which can make selecting the right labor lawyer a challenging endeavor. Conducting a Google search for “North Hollywood employment lawyer” is likely to yield a plethora of results, both paid and organic, further complicating the decision-making process. Choosing the right attorney who is well-versed in employment law and possesses extensive experience in handling employment-related disputes is not as straightforward as it may appear. While one can initiate online searches for “North Hollywood employment lawyer” or “labor lawyer in North Hollywood,” one of the most effective ways to distinguish between excellent lawyers and those who may be less proficient is by reading client reviews. If you find yourself in North Hollywood, California, and require the services of an employment lawyer, we encourage you to contact the Akopyan Law Firm. Our team of talented employment attorneys boasts well over a decade of experience in employment law. We have established a track record of success, consistently delivering favorable outcomes for both employers and employees. What sets us apart is not only our expertise but also our local presence, with offices located just minutes away from North Hollywood. We are not only highly skilled in our field but also readily accessible and convenient for the residents of North Hollywood. Your legal needs are our priority, and we stand ready to provide top-notch representation and world-class service to assist you in your employment law matters.

We Can Represent North Hollywood Residents In Cases Involving:

Featured Employment Case

A severely obese former employee brought an action against a tennis club, alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate her disability, disability harassment, and retaliation in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The Superior Court,entered summary adjudication in favor of club. On appeal the Court of Appeal held that: (1) fact question as to whether former employee’s severe obesity had a physiological cause precluded summary adjudication on claim of disability discrimination; (2) fact question regarding intentional discrimination precluded summary adjudication on claim of discriminatory termination; (3) former employee could not establish claim that employer violated FEHA by failing to accommodate her obesity as an actual disability; (4) fact questions as to severity and pervasiveness of workplace harassment precluded summary adjudication on claim of disability harassment; (5) FEHA amendment providing for protection against retaliation for persons requesting disability accommodation operated prospectively; (6) employer’s conduct was not sufficiently outrageous to support claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) fact questions precluded summary adjudication on claim of defamation. The appelate decision explained in part as follows: “Actionable harassment consists of more than “annoying or ‘merely offensive’ comments in the workplace,” and it cannot be “occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial; rather, the employee must show a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine, or a generalized nature.” (Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 283, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 132 P.3d 211.) Whether the harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment “must be assessed from the ‘perspective of a reasonable person belonging to [same protected class as] the plaintiff.’ ” (Nazir, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at pp. 263-264, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 296.) In making this assessment, we consider several factors, including “ ‘the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.’ ” (Jones v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1378, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 200.)

Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club, 18 Cal. App. 5th 908, 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 286 (2017)

 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