Palm Springs Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is fully prepared to champion the rights of workers in Palm Springs who are grappling with workplace issues such as discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and other forms of illegal conduct. Additionally, our firm is well-equipped to offer practical and cost-effective solutions to employment law challenges faced by small businesses in Palm Springs. Our extensive experience in handling employment disputes from both the employee and employer perspectives equips us with a unique understanding of the opposing side’s mindset, greatly enhancing our ability to secure the best possible outcomes for our clients.

About Palm Springs, California

Palm Springs is a city located in Riverside County. It covers approximately one hundred square miles and encompasses the following zip codes: 92262, 92263, and 92264. Whether it’s a round of golf in the winter or a massage at a first-class spa resort, Palm Springs is the place to enjoy life. Often described as a small city with the cultural amenities of an urban area, the shopping, entertainment, dining and recreational opportunities are first-class. Palm Springs lies on the western edge of the Coachella Valley in central Riverside County approximately 107 miles east of Los Angeles. Recently there has been a fascination with mid-century modern architecture – something Palm Springs is proud to have as part of its mix of eclectic design styles. Because it is only a two-hour drive from Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties, there are a large number of second homes in Palm Springs. The permanent population is 43,800 as of 2001, with another 27,000 to 30,000 people living in the City in the winter, bringing the total population to almost 75,000 residents during the winter season. Approximately 1 million tourists stay in hotels in Palm Springs annually while another 600,000 visitors stay in non-hotel accommodations. They are no doubt attracted by the weather, which includes some 350 days of sunshine. For those fortunate enough to call Palm Springs home, the City boasts many parks and recreational facilities including a municipal golf course, tennis courts, a public Olympic-size pool, dog park and a baseball stadium. If you enjoy being active, there are hiking trails, bicycle routes, a water park and horseback riding. Don’t forget to check out the City’s library and museums. From the desert floor you can travel 8,500 feet up Mt. San Jacinto aboard the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway as it makes the very scenic trip to its mountain station in about 15 minutes. In downtown Palm Springs, the palm trees grow tall and straight along the City’s main drag – Palm Canyon Drive. That’s where the City’s many parades and festivals are staged. Cruise the one-way strip lined with antique shops, art galleries, boutiques, restaurants and night clubs and you’ll soon spot something that will catch your eye. Better yet, enjoy the downtown on foot and see the names of many Hollywood legends that grace the Walk of Stars. Once the trendy playground of Hollywood stars, Palm Springs maintains its chic charm

The Best Palm Springs Employment Attorneys

Palm Springs offers a multitude of choices when it comes to labor lawyers, but finding the right one can be a challenge. Every law firm has its own distinct approach, and not every employee attorney in Palm Springs will be suited for every case. Some employment lawyers may opt for quick and straightforward low-value settlements, while others are willing to engage in a more prolonged legal battle to secure a resolution that aligns with the full value of the case. Conducting an online search for “employment lawyer Palm Springs” or “wrongful termination attorney in Palm Springs” typically yields numerous paid advertisements from lawyers, each vying for your attention. Sorting through these options can be daunting, especially when trying to determine which attorney possesses the experience and commitment needed to effectively handle employment-related disputes. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., our Palm Springs, California labor lawyers are dedicated to achieving the best possible outcomes for each client, regardless of the complexity of the case or the level of effort required. Our commitment to delivering high-quality legal services leads us to limit our caseload, ensuring that every client receives personalized attention and is treated like family. We take pride in offering top-notch personal service, and our clients’ testimonials attest to our dedication. Our relationships with clients often extend well beyond the duration of their cases, reflecting our commitment to their well-being. Our Palm Springs employment lawyers vigorously advocate for our clients, as evidenced by the outstanding results we have achieved. If you are seeking employment lawyers in Palm Springs, we invite you to contact us today for a complimentary case evaluation. With offices conveniently located in Riverside, Orange, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Palm Springs. Our employment lawyers are prepared to provide world-class legal services and top-notch representation to the residents of Palm Springs. When you choose the Akopyan Law Firm, you can trust that your legal matters will be handled with the utmost care and dedication.

We Can Help Palm Springs Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp., 89 Cal. App. 5th 294, 306 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2023)

After the employee’s supervisor sent text messages containing lewd photographs of himself to the employee, she sued under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for sexual harassment, failure to prevent sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, and also asserting claim for constructive termination in violation of public policy, and seeking punitive damages. The Superior Court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal held that the supervisor’s conduct was not imputable to the employer, and that the employer was not liable on constructive termination claim. In relevant part the opinion states: “FEHA prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace. (See Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(1); State Department of Health Services v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1034, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 441, 79 P.3d 556 (Health Services).) More specifically, FEHA makes it an “unlawful employment practice” for an employer to harass an employee because of the employee’s “sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, … [or] sexual orientation.” (§ 12940, subd. (j)(1), italics added.) ” ‘[T]he prohibition against sexual harassment includes protection from a broad range of conduct, [including] the creation of a work environment that is hostile or abusive on the basis of sex.’ ” (Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 277, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 132 P.3d 211 (Lyle).) “[A] plaintiff in a sexual harassment suit must show ‘the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive sexual connotations, but actually constituted “discrimina[tion] … because of … sex.” ’ ” (Lyle, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 280, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 132 P.3d 211, italics omitted.) “ ‘To plead a cause of action for … sexual harassment, it is “only necessary to show that gender is a substantial factor in the discrimination, and that if the plaintiff ‘had been a man [or a woman he or] she would not have been treated in the same manner.’ ” [Citation.]’ [Citations.] Accordingly, it is the disparate treatment of an employee on the basis of sex—not the mere discussion of sex or use of vulgar language—that is the essence of a sexual harassment claim.” (Ibid.) “[P]rohibited harassment includes ‘verbal, physical, and visual harassment, as well as unwanted sexual advances.’ [Citation.] In this regard, verbal harassment may include epithets, derogatory comments, or slurs on the basis of sex; … visual harassment may include derogatory posters, cartoons, or drawings on the basis of sex.” (Lyle, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 280-281, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 132 P.3d 211.) The plaintiff “must establish the offending conduct was imputable to [his or] her employer.” (Id. at p. 279, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 132 P.3d 211.) The underlying goal of FEHA in this context is to provide effective measures to prevent workplace harassment. (Health Services, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 1046-1047, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 441, 79 P.3d 556.) “ ‘Under the FEHA … there is a need to determine whether sexual conduct that occurs off the worksite or after working hours constitutes an “unlawful employment practice” within the ambit of the act.’ ” (Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1422, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 501, quoting § 12940 (italics added).) Under FEHA, an employer is strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor. (Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1236-1237, 166 Cal.Rptr.3d 676, citing Health Services, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 1040-1041, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 441, 79 P.3d 556.) However, an employer is only strictly liable under FEHA for harassment by a supervisor “if the supervisor is acting in the capacity of supervisor when the harassment occurs.” (Health Services, supra, at p. 1041, fn. 3, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 441, 79 P.3d 556.) “The employer is not strictly liable for a supervisor’s acts of harassment resulting from a completely private relationship unconnected with the employment and not occurring at the workplace or during normal working hours.” (Ibid., italics added.) Here, there is no dispute that Lund was a supervisor. With respect to summary judgment on Atalla’s sexual harassment claims, the issue below was and the issue on appeal is, whether Lund was acting in the capacity of a supervisor in the text exchange in which he sent the inappropriate texts, such that Rite Aid could properly be held strictly liable for that conduct. We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that Atalla has not raised a triable issue of material fact with respect to the required showing that Lund was acting in the capacity of a supervisor in the text exchange in which he sent the inappropriate texts. Rather, as the trial court found, Lund and Atalla had “an extensive texting relationship” and their January 4, 2019 late-night text exchange, which “occurred outside the workplace and outside of work hours,” was “spawned from a personal exchange that arose from a friendship between [them].” Summary judgment is therefore proper as to Atalla’s sexual harassment claims.

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

$400 ThousandEmployment: Constructive Termination

$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

$210 ThousandEmployment: Family Leave Retaliation

$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

MORE RESULTS