Northridge Employment Attorneys

Northridge, California

Northridge is one of the larger neighborhoods in the City of Los Angeles.  It is situated in the northwest part of the San Fernando Valley and is home to more than 60,000 Angelenos.  Administratively Northridge is divided into three sections: Northridge West, Northridge East, and Northridge South. It covers approximately nine square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 91324, 91325, 91326, and 91343. As with many towns before it, the development of Northridge began with the arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1874. The Southern Pacific ran a railroad track “diagonally across the Valley floor from Burbank to Chatsworth that became the coastal route up California”. (Valley Observed). Coinciding with a valley-wide drought, stations were set up along the way to provide water for the cattle (Roderick). In 1914, water from William Mulholland’s aqueduct system was diverted to the San Fernando Valley, where he owned a ranch between Chatsworth and Northridge (then known as Zelzah). The story of land grabs and the leeching of water from Owen’s Valley through the San Francisquito Canyon was to become infamous, with accusations of a conspiracy leveled in the film Chinatown. But for the valley, it meant a reliable supply of water and the main crop of Northridge changed from grains such as wheat to citrus and walnuts.  On Nov. 1, 1938 the community of North Los Angeles, once known as Zelzah, changed its name once again to Northridge. Northridge was known as “the horse capitol of the West” and became a popular place for movie stars to build their ranches.  The landscape of Northridge as we know it today began with the end of World War II. Returning veterans were looking for the suburban dream, and land developers were determined to provide it. Tract housing began replacing orange groves. By 1960, the population had grown to 850,000  Inadequate streets, sewers, public transportation and other basics such as telephones and grocery stores could not keep up with the expansion. The loss of the Pacific Rail (Red Car) line added to the traffic congestion. Today, Northridge is a vibrant community, and is home to the California State University at Northridge, the Northridge Hospital, the Northridge Mall, and many other attractions. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles which is minutes away from Northridge.  Thus, we offer legal services to both employees and employers in the Northridge area.

Where To Find The Best Northridge Employment Lawyers

Northridge, due to its central location, presents its residents with a plethora of choices when it comes to legal representation. Numerous lawyers and law firms extend their services to Northridge residents, with some being so enthusiastic that they might figuratively wish to break down your door and present their sales pitch in your living room. For both employers and employees in Northridge facing substantial legal issues and real-world challenges within the field of employment law, the primary challenge is identifying the attorney who is the best fit for their specific needs. This task can be further complicated by the constant barrage of attention-grabbing radio advertisements and clichéd posters plastered on billboards, buses, and street benches. Although many individuals turn to online searches for assistance, querying “Northridge employment lawyer” or “best wrongful termination attorney in Northridge” often yields search results inundated with paid advertisements from lawyers known for their billboard-sized presence. In some instances, a billboard lawyer may indeed be a sound choice. However, there are situations that demand nothing less than top-tier representation from seasoned legal counsel. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each attorney boasts nearly two decades of invaluable experience. Our legal team has consistently achieved favorable outcomes for both employers and employees, establishing a well-documented track record of success. Our firm’s guiding principle centers around prioritizing quality over quantity, ensuring that each case receives the utmost attention and expertise. We don’t merely expect you to take our word for it; we are more than willing to provide client references upon request. Additionally, you can peruse our online reviews to gain insight into the experiences of our clients. With offices conveniently located just minutes away from Northridge, we are fully prepared to offer residents of Northridge top-tier legal representation. Your legal needs are our priority, and we stand ready to provide world-class service.

We Can Fight For Northridge Residents In Cases Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Respondent United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), hired petitioner as a mechanic, a position that required him to drive commercial vehicles. To drive, he had to satisfy certain Department of Transportation (DOT) health certification requirements, including having “no current clinical diagnosis of high blood pressure likely to interfere with his/her ability to operate a commercial vehicle safely.” 49 CFR § 391.41(b)(6). Despite petitioner’s high blood pressure, he was erroneously granted certification and commenced work. **2135 After the error was discovered, respondent fired him on the belief that his blood pressure exceeded the DOT’s requirements. Petitioner brought suit under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA), the District Court granted respondent summary judgment, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Citing its decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 902, aff’d, 527 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450, that an individual claiming a disability under the ADA should be assessed with regard to any mitigating or corrective measures employed, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner’s hypertension is not a disability because his doctor testified that when medicated, petitioner functions normally in everyday activities. The court also affirmed the District Court’s determination that petitioner is not “regarded as” disabled under the ADA, explaining that respondent did not terminate him on an unsubstantiated fear that he would suffer a heart attack or stroke, but because his blood pressure exceeded the DOT’s requirements for commercial vehicle drivers.

The Supreme Court held as follows:
1. Under the ADA, the determination of whether petitioner’s impairment “substantially limits” one or more major life activities is made with reference to the mitigating measures he employs. Sutton, 527 U.S., at 471, 119 S.Ct. 2139. The Tenth Circuit concluded that, when medicated, petitioner’s high blood pressure does not substantially limit him in any major life activity. Because the question whether petitioner is disabled when taking medication is not before this Court, there is no occasion here to consider whether he is “disabled” due to limitations that persist despite his medication or the negative side effects of his medication.

2. Petitioner is not “regarded as” disabled because of his high blood pressure. Under Sutton, 527 U.S., at 489, 119 S.Ct. 2139, a person is “regarded as” disabled *517 within the ADA’s meaning if, among other things, a covered entity mistakenly believes that the person’s actual, nonlimiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities. Here, respondent argues that it does not regard petitioner as substantially limited in the major life activity of working, but, rather, regards him as unqualified to work as a UPS mechanic because he is unable to obtain DOT health certification. When referring to the major life activity of working, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines “substantially limits” as “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). Thus, one must be regarded as precluded from more than a particular job. Assuming without deciding that the EEOC regulations are valid, the Court concludes that the evidence that petitioner is regarded as unable to meet the DOT regulations is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he is regarded as unable to perform a class of jobs utilizing his skills. At most, petitioner has shown that he is regarded as unable to perform the job of mechanic only when that job requires driving a commercial motor vehicle—a specific type of vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce. He has put forward no evidence that he is regarded as unable to perform any mechanic job that does not call for driving a commercial motor vehicle and thus does not require DOT certification. Indeed, it is undisputed that he is generally employable as a mechanic, and there is uncontroverted evidence that he could perform a number of mechanic jobs. Consequently, petitioner has failed to show that he is regarded as unable to perform a class of jobs. Rather, the undisputed record evidence demonstrates that petitioner is, at most, regarded as unable to perform only a particular job. This is insufficient, as a matter of law, to prove that petitioner is regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working.

Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999)

 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