Pasadena Employment Attorneys

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

Pasadena, California

Pasadena is situated in west San Gabriel Valley and is home to more than 130,000 residents.  It covers approximately twenty five square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 91101, 91102, 91103, 91104, 91105, 91106, 91107, 91108, 91109, 91110, 91114, 91115, 91116, 91117, 91118, 91121, 91123, 91124, 91125, 91126, 91129, 91182, 91184, 91185, 91188, 91189, 91199.  The City has a rich history. The San Gabriel Mission, the fourth in California, grew to be prosperous, with abundant orchards, vineyards and herds. The vast lands which it administered for the Spanish Crown were divided into ranchos. After the rule of missions, California passed from Spain to Mexico, the Mexican government in 1833 secularized the mission lands and awarded them to individuals. In 1886 Pasadena incorporated. In the ensuing decade, amenities such as sewers, paved streets, and electric street lighting were installed. On January 1, 1890, the Valley Hunt Club initiated a mid-winter festival with a procession of flower-bedecked horses and carriages. This became a yearly tradition that in 1898 was formally sponsored by the Tournament of Roses Association.  Throop Polytechnic Institute (first named Throop University) was founded in 1891 and later became the California Institute of Technology. In March 1886, Pasadena became the second incorporated municipality, after the city of Los Angeles, in Los Angeles County. The Second World War proved to be a boom to Pasadena as Southern California became a major staging area for the Pacific War. High tech manufacturing and scientific companies made the city their home, a trend which continued in the decades following the war. Pasadena boasts beautiful architecture, including historic homes and buildings in various architectural styles, such as Craftsman, Victorian, and Spanish Colonial Revival. The Gamble House, designed by the Greene brothers, is a notable example of Craftsman architecture. The California Institute of Technology (Caltech), one of the world’s leading research institutions, is located in Pasadena. It’s known for its contributions to science and technology. The Rose Bowl, an iconic stadium in Pasadena, is famous for hosting the annual Rose Bowl college football game and various other sporting and cultural events. Pasadena’s history and character reflect a blend of natural beauty, cultural heritage, educational excellence, and a strong sense of community. It remains a vibrant city in the greater Los Angeles area, offering residents and visitors a wide range of cultural and recreational experiences. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles which is minutes away from Pasadena.  Thus, our employment lawyers stand ready to serve employees and employers in Pasadena with all their employment law needs.

Ways to Identify The Best Employment Lawyers in Pasadena

Pasadena residents are fortunate to have a plethora of options when it comes to legal representation. The city’s vibrant legal landscape boasts numerous lawyers and law firms vying to offer their services to local residents. For both employers and employees in Pasadena, dealing with significant legal issues and real-world challenges related to employment law can be daunting. The challenge lies in identifying the right attorney to address their specific needs. This search is further complicated by the constant bombardment of flashy radio advertisements and the presence of eye-catching billboards, bus ads, and bench posters promoting legal services. In today’s digital age, most individuals turn to online searches to find suitable legal counsel. However, conducting an online search for “Pasadena employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Pasadena” often yields results inundated with paid advertisements from lawyers who prioritize marketing campaigns over the quality of their legal representation. While some cases may be suited for the services of billboard lawyers, others demand the expertise and dedication of experienced counsel with a track record of success. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each attorney boasts nearly two decades of experience. Our legal team is renowned for achieving positive outcomes for both employers and employees. Our firm’s philosophy centers around quality over quantity. We prioritize courtroom advocacy for our clients’ rights instead of 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 insights into our clients’ experiences. With offices located just minutes away from Pasadena, we are fully equipped to deliver the highest caliber of legal representation to Pasadena residents. When you choose the Akopyan Law Firm, you are selecting a team of attorneys dedicated to providing top-notch legal services tailored to your specific needs.

Our Lawyers Can Help Pasadena Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

Mogilefsky v. Superior Ct., 20 Cal. App. 4th 1409, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 116 (1993)

An employee sued for same gender sexual harassment by a supervisor. After the trial court sustained the demurrers, the employee petitioned for writ of mandamus to vacate order sustaining the demurrers. The Court of Appeal held that same gender sexual harassment may be basis of cause of action for sexual harassment. The Court’s holding provides that same gender sexual harassment of man or woman may be basis of cause of action for sexual harassment, whether based on quid pro quo theory, hostile environment theory, or hybrid. To state cause of action for quid pro quo harassment, it is sufficient to allege that term of employment was expressly or impliedly conditioned upon acceptance of supervisor’s unwelcome sexual advances. Cause of action for sexual harassment on hostile environment theory need not allege any sexual advances whatsoever. Cause of action for sexual harassment on hostile environment theory is stated where it is alleged that employer created hostile environment for employee because of that employee’s sex.  The Court opinion states: “We find no basis of support in the statutory language for the contention that the Legislature intended to limit protection from sexual harassment to male-female harassment. Although the statute does not specify whether it prohibits “same gender” harassment or “other gender” harassment, no ambiguity is created by this omission. Common usage indicates that in the absence of a modifying adjective, the Legislature intended to prohibit sexual harassment in all cases. (See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haight (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 223, 239, 252 Cal.Rptr. 162 [absence of limiting adjectives as indicative of legislative intent not to limit application of statute].) This conclusion finds support in decisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission and in federal law interpreting similar provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The commission has interpreted the statute to apply to harassment by a member of the same sex. (See Dept. Fair Emp. & Hous. v. Ring (1985) No. 85–17, pp. 8, 20; Dept. Fair Emp. & Hous. v. Ring (1985) No. 85–18, p. 5 [male employer subjected his male employee to sexual threats, comments and advances]; Dept. Fair Emp. & Hous. v. Villazar de la Cruz, Inc. (1990) No. 90–04, p. 7 [a female employee subjected to breast grabbing by another female employee].) The weight of federal authority is in accord. (See, e.g., Joyner v. AAA *1417 Cooper Transp. (M.D.Ala.1983) 597 F.Supp. 537, 541, affd. (1984) 749 F.2d 732 [“unwelcomed homosexual harassment also states a violation of Title VII.” (Emphasis omitted.) ]; Wright v. Methodist Youth Services, Inc. (N.D.Ill.1981) 511 F.Supp. 307, 309–310 [termination due to refusal of homosexual advances states a claim under Title VII]; Polly v. Houston Lighting & Power Co. (S.D.Texas 1993) 825 F.Supp. 135, 137 [“Title VII was intended to apply to claims of harassment based on sex, without regard to the gender of the complainant or the harassing party…. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex from the harasser.”].)

 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
$250 ThousandEmployment Law: Disability 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: Religious Discrimination
$100 ThousandEmployment: Failure to Accommodate
$100 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Bicycle Collision
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Pedestrian Collision