Ontario Employment Attorneys
Our seasoned employment lawyers are prepared to enforce and protect the rights of Ontario residents.
Ontario is city located in San Bernardino County. Ontario covers fifty square miles. It is home to roughly 178,000 residents. Ontario lies within zip code 91758, 91761, 91762, 91764. The city’s name traces its origins to the Ontario Model Colony, founded in 1992 by Canadian engineer George Chaffey and his brothers William and Charles. Ontario was founded as a farming and agricultural community in the late 19th century. Its growth was driven by the arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the 1880s, which helped connect the region to other parts of California and the country. Over the years, Ontario’s economy has diversified beyond agriculture to include industries such as manufacturing, logistics, warehousing, and distribution. The city is known for its Ontario International Airport, which serves as a major transportation hub for both passengers and cargo. Ontario International Airport (ONT) is a significant airport in the region, providing domestic and international flights. It is a popular alternative to the busier Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) for travelers in the Inland Empire and surrounding areas. Ontario is served by several public school districts and is home to multiple educational institutions, including Chaffey College, which is a community college, and the University of La Verne’s campus. The city offers various recreational and entertainment options, including shopping centers like the Ontario Mills mall, which is one of the largest outlet malls in California. Citizens Business Bank Arena is a multi-purpose arena that hosts concerts, sports events, and other entertainment.
How Ontario Residents Can Find The Best Employment Lawyer
Ontario residents have several options when it comes to finding a reputable attorney to handle their legal matters. One common approach is to seek recommendations and referrals from friends and family who may have had similar legal needs. These personal referrals can be valuable in connecting you with an attorney who has a proven track record of providing excellent legal services. Another approach is to conduct an online search for a “wrongful termination attorney Ontario.” The internet is a powerful tool for researching and identifying potential attorneys in your area. However, it’s essential to dig deeper than just a quick online search. Take the time to explore the attorney’s website, read client reviews and testimonials, and assess their experience and expertise in handling cases related to your legal needs. While conducting your online search, you may come across advertisements from billboard lawyers or law firms. While these advertisements can be attention-grabbing, it’s crucial to remember that the flashy presentation doesn’t always guarantee the best legal representation. To make an informed decision, delve into their background, experience, and success record to ensure they are well-equipped to handle your case effectively. Regardless of the approach you choose, the most critical factor is confirming that the potential attorney possesses the experience, talent, and a track record of delivering positive results for their clients. Legal matters can be complex and challenging, and having a skilled attorney by your side can make all the difference in achieving a favorable outcome. The Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., is a reputable legal firm with a strong presence in Southern California. With offices conveniently located in Riverside, Orange, and Burbank, we are just minutes away from Ontario. Our team of employment lawyers has nearly two decades of experience and a proven track record of representing both employees and employers. We are dedicated to providing world-class legal services and top-notch representation to the residents of Ontario. Our commitment to quality and client satisfaction sets us apart, making us a reliable choice for your legal needs.
We Can Help Ontario Residents With:
Featured Employment Case
An employee sued for disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion which explained in part as follows: “The ADA prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability in regard to terms, conditions and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The ADA defines “disability” as “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). Whether Gribben’s heart condition constituted a disability under the ADA involves three inquiries: (1) whether Gribben’s condition was a physical impairment; (2) whether the life activities from which he was impaired (e.g., walking) amounted to major life activities; and (3) whether Gribben’s impairment substantially limited him from performing the identified major life activities. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631, 118 S.Ct. 2196, 141 L.Ed.2d 540 (1998). Gribben argues that there is substantial evidence in the record that he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA due to substantial limitations on a number of major life activities including, but not limited to, walking. UPS concedes that Gribben’s heart condition is a physical impairment, and that the life activities limited by his heart condition, including walking, amount to “major life activities.” UPS, however, argues that Gribben’s impairment did not “substantially limit” him from performing any major life activity. “Substantially limits” is defined as: i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or ii) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1) (2006). The regulations further provide that whether someone is substantially limited in a major life activity is to be examined using such factors as: i) The nature and severity of the impairment; ii) The duration or expected duration of the impairment; and iii) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2) (2006).
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results