Panorama City Employment Lawyers
The labor attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in Panorama City, California.
Panorama City, California
Panorama City is one of the larger neighborhoods in the City of Los Angeles. It is situated in the center of the San Fernando Valley and is home to more than 70,000 Angelenos. It covers approximately three and a half square miles and encompasses the following zip code: 91402. Panorama City is one of the youngest communities in the San Fernando Valley and one of the best-known planned communities in Los Angeles County. It is known for its suburban character and its place in the post-World War II suburban development of Los Angeles. Here’s an overview of the history of Panorama City:
Early Settlement: Before its urban development, the area now known as Panorama City was primarily agricultural land, featuring orchards and farms. It was part of the vast Rancho Ex-Mission San Fernando, a Mexican land grant.
Post-World War II Development: Panorama City’s history is closely tied to the post-World War II suburban boom in Los Angeles. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the land was purchased and developed by residential and commercial real estate developers, including Fritz B. Burns and Henry J. Kaiser. They saw the potential for creating a planned community to accommodate the growing population of Los Angeles. In an area originally part of one of the largest dairy and sheep ranches in Southern California, Panorama City was developed in the late 1940s.
The Vision for Panorama City: The developers envisioned Panorama City as a master-planned community with a central business district, shopping centers, schools, parks, and housing to meet the needs of returning veterans and their families. It was marketed as an ideal suburban living destination. Known as the Valley’s first planned community after a transition from agriculture to a post-World War II housing boom. It is now a mixture of single-family homes and low-rise apartment buildings.
Residential Development: Residential neighborhoods in Panorama City were designed to provide affordable housing options for the middle class. The community featured a mix of single-family homes, apartments, and townhouses. Panorama City has three high schools, two recreational centers, a senior center, ice rink, two hospitals and a chamber of commerce.
Commercial and Retail Centers: The Panorama City Shopping Center, opened in 1955, was one of the first regional shopping centers in the San Fernando Valley. It became a hub for retail and commerce in the area, attracting shoppers from neighboring communities.
Educational Institutions: Panorama High School and Vista Middle School were established to serve the educational needs of the growing community.
Cultural Diversity: Over the years, Panorama City’s population has become diverse, with residents representing various cultural backgrounds and ethnicities.
Challenges and Changes: Like many urban areas, Panorama City faced challenges related to urban sprawl, transportation, and economic shifts. The community has experienced changes in demographics and economic dynamics over time.
Community Engagement: Panorama City residents have been actively engaged in civic and community organizations, working to address local issues and improve the quality of life in the neighborhood.
Today, Panorama City is a well-established neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley, known for its suburban character, commercial amenities, and diverse population. Its history reflects the broader trends of post-war suburban development in Los Angeles, as it transformed from agricultural land into a vibrant community. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in the City of Burbank which is minutes away from Panorama City. Thus, the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. offers legal services to both employees and employers in the Panorama City area.
Your Search For The Best Wrongful Termination Lawyers in Panorama City Is At Its End
Panorama City residents are presented with numerous options when it comes to choosing legal representation. The central location of Panorama City attracts a multitude of lawyers and law firms, all vying to offer their services to its residents. Some lawyers are known for their aggressive marketing tactics, going to great lengths to capture potential clients’ attention, including making uninvited visits to their homes.
For individuals, both employers and employees, dealing with significant legal issues, particularly those related to employment law, the challenge lies in identifying the right lawyer for their specific needs. The task can be further complicated by the constant bombardment of attention-grabbing radio advertisements and the presence of eye-catching billboards, bus ads, and bench posters promoting legal services.
In today’s digital age, most people turn to online searches to find the right attorney. However, conducting an online search for “Panorama City employment lawyer” or “best Panorama City attorney” can yield results that are inundated with paid advertisements from lawyers, including those who invest heavily in marketing campaigns rather than prioritizing the quality of their legal representation.
While some cases may benefit from the services of billboard lawyers, others demand the expertise and dedication of experienced counsel with a proven track record of success. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each attorney boasts nearly two decades of experience. Our legal team has established a reputation for delivering positive outcomes for both employers and employees.
Our firm’s ethos revolves around a commitment to quality rather than quantity. We focus on advocating for our clients’ rights in the courtroom rather than investing in flashy radio ads. We value transparency and trust and are more than willing to provide client references upon request. Additionally, you can explore our online reviews to gain insight into the experiences of our clients. With offices located just minutes away from Panorama City, we are fully prepared to offer the highest caliber of legal representation to Panorama City residents. When you choose the Akopyan Law Firm, you are selecting a team of attorneys dedicated to delivering top-notch legal services tailored to your specific needs.
We Stand Ready To Fight For Panorama City Residents In Cases Involving:
Featured Employment Case
Meeks v. Autozone, Inc., 24 Cal. App. 5th 855, 235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 161 (2018)
A female employee, who was a manager of automobile parts store, sued her employer and alleged harasser, who was the manager of another store, for sexual harassment, failure to prevent sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Superior Court granted summary adjudication in favor of employer on retaliation claim, and, following a trial entered judgment on jury verdict in favor of defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, Codrington, J., held that: (1) the employee’s detailed testimony was admissible secondary evidence to prove unavailable messages’ content; (2) the employee’s detailed testimony regarding the content of text messages was not inadmissible hearsay; (3) the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding evidence of sexual harassment allegations and lawsuit by another female employee regarding different alleged harasser; (4) the “me too” evidence of sexual harassment of nonparty employees by same alleged harasser outside employee’s presence was not subject to per se exclusion; (5) the trial court acted within its discretion in determining evidence of employee’s discussions of personal and intimate matters with alleged harasser was admissible; (6) a photograph of the employee’s tattoo was not sexual conduct “with” alleged harasser, and thus was not admissible; (7) the trial court’s erroneous evidentiary rulings were not harmless; and *(8) there was no evidence of adverse employment action, and thus employer was not liable for retaliation. The Court observed: “Sexual harassment is actionable under FEHA when there is “a pattern of continuous, pervasive harassment,” giving rise to a hostile work environment that is both objectively and subjectively offensive. (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 607-608, 611, 262 Cal.Rptr. 842.) In contending that the “subjectively offensive” element was not proven, a defendant “will assert that a plaintiff consented to the conduct through active participation in it, or was not injured because the plaintiff did not subjectively find it abusive.” (Rieger v. Arnold (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 451, 461, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 295 (Rieger ).) Section 1106 limits the evidence the defendant may use to support this assertion. It provides that “[i]n any civil action alleging conduct which constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, opinion evidence, reputation evidence, and evidence of specific instances of the plaintiff’s sexual conduct, or any of that evidence, is not admissible by the defendant in order to prove consent by the plaintiff or the absence of injury to the plaintiff ….” (§ 1106, subd. (a).) This general rule is, however, subject to the exception that it “does not apply to evidence of the plaintiff’s sexual conduct with the alleged perpetrator.” (§ 1106, subd. (b).) The term “sexual conduct” within the meaning of section 1106 has been broadly construed to include “all active or passive behavior (whether statements or actions) that either directly or through reasonable inference establishes a plaintiff’s willingness to engage in sexual activity,” including “racy banter, sexual horseplay, and statements concerning prior, proposed, or planned sexual exploits.” (Rieger, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 462, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 295.)
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results