Pacoima Employment Attorneys

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

Pacoima, California

Pacoima is a neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles.  It is situated in the northeast part of the San Fernando Valley and is home to more than 80,000 Angelenos.  It covers approximately seven square miles and encompasses the following zip code: 91331. The area where Pacoima is located was first inhabited by the Fernandeño-Tongva and Tataviam people, California Indian Tribes, now known as Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. The original name for the Native American village in this area was actually Pakoinga or Pakɨynga in Fernandeño, but since the “ng” sound did not exist in Spanish, the Spaniards mistook the sound as an “m” and recorded the name as Pacoima, as is seen today. Pacoima’s written history dates to 1769 when Spaniards entered the San Fernando Valley.  In 1771, nearby Mission San Fernando Rey was founded, with Native Americans creating gardens for the mission in the area. They lived at the mission working on the gardens which, in a few years, had stretched out over most of the valley.  The Mexican government secularized the mission lands in 1834 by taking them away from the church. The first governor of California, Pio Pico, leased the lands to Andrés Pico, his brother. In 1845, Pio Pico sold the whole San Fernando Valley to Don Eulogio de Celis for $14,000 to raise money for the war between Mexico and the United States, settled by a treaty signed at Campo de Cahuenga in 1845, and by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The Pacoima area became sheep ranches and wheat fields. Los Angeles annexed the land, including Pacoima, as part of ordinance 32192 N.S. on May 22, 1915.  During World War II, the rapid expansion of the workforce at Lockheed’s main plant in neighboring Burbank and need for worker housing led to the construction of residential homes in Pacoima.  By the 1950s, the rapid suburbanization of the San Fernando Valley arrived in Pacoima, and the area changed almost overnight from a dusty farming area to a bedroom community for the fast-growing industries in Los Angeles and nearby Burbank. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in the City of Burbank which is minutes away from Pacoima.  The Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. can provide legal services to both employees and employers in Pacoima.

Pacoima Labor Lawyers

Although Pacoima is a thriving community, it is known as a bedroom community, which means that there aren’t too many lawyers or law firms within its limits. A Google search for “Pacoima employment lawyer” will likely produce paid advertisements from other employment lawyers in surrounding areas, such as for example, downtown Los Angeles, or Century City. Selecting the right attorney with the requisite skill and experience is difficult when it is based on a paid advertisement from a non-local attorney.  Finding an attorney well versed in this area of the law, and experienced in handling such disputes, is not as easy as it may seem. Each attorney at the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. has almost two decades of experience.  Our lawyers have a proven track record of success for both employers and employees. The firm’s approach is to focus on quality, not quantity.  Our lawyers prefer to spend our time in the courtroom fighting for their clients’ rights, instead of the recording studio recording catchy radio ads.  We don’t want you to take our word for it; We will gladly provide client references upon request.  You can of course also check out our reviews online.  With offices just minutes away from Pacoima, we stand ready to provide legal representation of the highest caliber to residents of Pacoima.

We Stand Ready to Help Pacoima Residents With All Their Employment Law Needs Including:

Featured Employment Case

Gabriela Lopez filed the underlying action for employment discrimination and wrongful termination against La Casa de Las Madres (La Casa). La Casa is a non-profit organization that provides services to women and children who are victims of domestic violence. Lopez worked for La Casa at various times between 2002 and 2017. In 2014, she accepted the position of shelter manager at La Casa’s residential shelter for domestic violence victims. In September 2016, Lopez gave birth to a baby girl. Thereafter she did not return to work due to events that gave rise to this action. Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of La Casa. On appeal, Lopez argued that the trial court misapplied provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) that require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for a pregnancy-related condition. (Govt. Code, § 12940 et seq.; subsequent statutory references are to this code.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. In the published portion of its decision, the court observed there are no California cases articulating the elements of a pregnancy discrimination claim under section 12945, subdivision (a)(3)(A) (section 12945(a)(3)(A)). Drawing from the statutory language and applicable regulatory law, as well as pertinent FEHA case law, the appellate court concluded that a cause of action under section 12945(a)(3)(A) requires proof that: (1) the plaintiff had a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition; (2) the plaintiff requested accommodation of this condition, with the advice of her health care provider; (3) the plaintiff’s employer refused to provide a reasonable accommodation; and (4) with the reasonable accommodation, the plaintiff could have performed the essential functions of the job. The appellate court determined that the trial court applied a correct understanding of these elements and, contrary to plaintiff’s contentions otherwise, properly placed the burden on plaintiff to prove that she had a condition related to pregnancy and that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job with reasonable accommodation. (See e.g. Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 262, 264, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 390, 165 P.3d 118 (Green).)  In the unpublished portion of this opinion, the Court rejected Lopez’s argument that she proved La Casa engaged in an unlawful employment practice under section 12945 and section 12940 by failing to accommodate Lopez’s pregnancy-related disability.

Lopez v. La Casa De Las Madres, 89 Cal. App. 5th 365 (2023)

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