Pacific Palisades Employment Lawyers
The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to fight for the rights of workers in Pacific Palisades dealing with discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace. The firm also stands ready to provide small businesses in Pacific Palisades economical and efficient solutions to problems involving employment law. Our substantial experience in approaching employment disputes from both sides gives us rare insight into the mindset of the opponent, which truly goes a long way to achieving the best possible outcome.
About Pacific Palisades, California
Pacific Palisades is an affluent residential neighborhood of Los Angeles tucked between the Santa Monica Mountains and the Pacific Ocean. It is home to more than 25,000 residents. It covers approximately twenty three square miles and encompasses the following zip code: 90272. The name “Pacific Palisades” comes from the term “palisades,” a geological formation consisting of a series of cliff-like bluffs situated by a body of water, in this case the Pacific Ocean, and also for the area’s purported resemblance to The Palisades on the west side of the lower Hudson River. The land that became Pacific Palisades was originally within the boundaries of Rancho Boca de Santa Monica, granted by the governor of California during the Mexican period to Francisco Marquez and Ysidro Reyes in 1839. Reyes died in 1863. Reyes left his portion of Rancho Boca de Santa Monica to his widow, Maria Antonia Villa, who sold it to developer and railroad magnate Robert Symington Baker in 1875. Charles H. Scott founded Pacific Palisades in 1922 envisioning an elaborate religious-intellectual commune. Believers snapped up choice lots and lived in tents during construction. By 1925, the Palisades had 100 homes. The tents eventually were replaced by cabins, then by bungalows, and ultimately by multimillion-dollar homes. Pacific Palisades enjoyed steady growth throughout the Roaring 20s, but it was still a small, isolated community out on the edge of Los Angeles. It began to become less isolated with the paving of Sunset Boulevard in 1925, which brought an increased flow of traffic through the community. Pacific Palisades is a largely residential community and does not attract many tourists other than day visitors to Gladstones Malibu, the local beaches, the Getty Villa or the Self-Realization Fellowship Lake Shrine. With offices in Burbank, Orange, and Riverside the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Pacific Palisades. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Pacific Palisades.
Your Search For The Best Pacific Palisades Employment Attorneys Is Over
Locating the right labor lawyer in Pacific Palisades can be a challenging endeavor. The legal landscape offers a variety of firms, each with its own unique approach. Not every employee attorney in Pacific Palisades will be suited for every case. Some employment lawyers may lean toward quick and easy, low-value settlements, while others are prepared to engage in a substantial, drawn-out fight that ultimately leads to a full-value resolution.
Conducting an internet search for “employment lawyer Pacific Palisades” or “wrongful termination attorney in Pacific Palisades” will likely yield numerous paid advertisements from lawyers eager to take the easy route. At the Akopyan Law Firm in Pacific Palisades, California, our labor lawyers are committed to achieving the best possible outcome for each client, regardless of the size of the battle it may require. Our dedication to delivering top-quality work on every case leads us to limit our practice to a certain number of cases, ensuring that every employee who becomes our client is treated like family.
We take pride in providing first-class personal service, but we don’t expect you to take our word for it—see what our clients have to say! The relationships we cultivate with our clients often extend beyond the life of the case. Our Pacific Palisades employment lawyers fervently advocate for our clients, as evidenced by the excellent results they have consistently achieved. If you’re in search of employment lawyers in Pacific Palisades, contact us today for a complimentary case evaluation. Your legal needs are our priority, and we are here to provide you with the best possible representation.
We Can Fight For The Rights of Pacific Palisades Residents In Cases Involving:
Featured Employment Case
AT & T Corp. v. Hulteen, 556 U.S. 701, (2009)
Petitioner and its former operating companies (collectively, AT & T) long based pension calculations on a seniority system that relied on years of service minus uncredited leave time, giving less retirement credit for pregnancy absences than for medical leave generally. In response to the ruling in General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343, that such differential treatment of pregnancy leave was not sex-based discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress added the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) to Title VII in 1978 to make it “clear that it is discriminatory to treat pregnancy-related conditions less favorably than other medical conditions,” Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669, 684, 103 S.Ct. 2622, 77 L.Ed.2d 89. On the PDA’s effective date, AT & T replaced its old plan with the Anticipated Disability Plan, which provided the same service credit for pregnancy leave as for other disabilities prospectively, but did not make any retroactive adjustments for the pre-PDA personnel policies. Each of the individual respondents therefore received less service credit for her pre-PDA pregnancy leave than she would have for general disability leave, resulting in a reduction in her total employment term and, consequently, smaller AT & T pensions. They, along with their union, also a respondent, filed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges alleging discrimination based on sex and pregnancy in violation of Title VII. The EEOC issued each respondent (collectively, Hulteen) a determination letter finding reasonable cause to believe AT & T had discriminated and a right-to-sue letter. Hulteen filed suit in the District Court, which held itself bound by a Ninth Circuit precedent finding a Title VII violation where post-PDA retirement eligibility calculations incorporated pre-PDA accrual rules that differentiated based on pregnancy. The Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court held that an employer does not necessarily violate the PDA when it pays pension benefits calculated in part under an accrual rule, applied only pre-PDA, that gave less retirement credit for pregnancy than for medical leave generally. Because AT & T’s pension payments accord with a bona fide seniority system’s terms, they are insulated from challenge under Title VII § 703(h).
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results