Perris Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in Perris, California.
Perris is a city located in Riverside County. Perris is home to more than 80,000 residents. It covers approximately thirty two square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 92570, 92571, 92572, and 92599. Perris was named after Fred T. Perris, the chief engineer of the California Southern Railroad, which played a significant role in the city’s development in the late 19th century. The city’s growth was closely tied to the expansion of the railroad and the agricultural industry in the region. Historically, Perris was known for its agriculture, including citrus groves and vineyards. While the city has diversified its economy in more recent years, agriculture remains an important part of its heritage. Perris offers many recreational opportunities. The nearby Lake Perris State Recreation Area is a popular destination for boating, fishing, camping, and hiking. The city also has several parks and recreational facilities for residents and visitors to enjoy. Perris is known for its active skydiving community. The Perris Valley Skydiving Center is one of the largest and most well-known skydiving centers in the world, attracting enthusiasts and thrill-seekers from around the globe. Perris has experienced significant population growth over the years, driven in part by its location within the Inland Empire, where many people have sought more affordable housing options compared to the coastal areas of Southern California.
The Best Employment Lawyers in Perris
Perris residents have a plethora of choices when it comes to selecting lawyers, but finding the right one can be a challenging task. The process is further complicated by the constant barrage of gimmicky radio advertisements and cheesy billboards that litter buses, street benches, and other public spaces. When individuals in Perris are confronted with significant legal issues related to employment law, distinguishing the right attorney from the rest can be quite perplexing. Many people turn to online searches in their quest for legal representation, typing phrases like “Perris employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Perris” into search engines. However, these searches often yield results dominated by paid advertisements from billboard lawyers. While billboard lawyers may be suitable for certain cases, there are situations that demand the highest caliber of representation provided by experienced counsel. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each of our attorneys boasts nearly two decades of experience and a proven track record of success representing both employers and employees in employment law matters. Our firm’s philosophy centers on delivering quality legal services, not quantity. Our attorneys prioritize spending their time in the courtroom, vigorously fighting for the rights of their clients, rather than in a recording studio creating catchy radio ads. We encourage prospective clients not to solely rely on our word but to request client references or read our online reviews to gain a deeper understanding of the service we provide. With offices conveniently located in Riverside, Orange, and Burbank, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Perris. Our employment lawyers are fully prepared to offer world-class legal services and top-notch representation to the residents of Perris. When you choose the Akopyan Law Firm, you can trust that your legal concerns will be handled with the utmost professionalism and dedication.
We Can Help Perris Residents With:
Featured Employment Case
Rehmani v. Superior Ct., 204 Cal. App. 4th 945, 139 Cal. Rptr. 3d 464 (2012)
A former employee brought action against employer for workplace harassment under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Superior Court granted summary adjudication for employer. The employee petitioned for writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal, Elia, J., held that fact issue existed as to whether Indian employees created hostile environment for Pakistani Muslim co-worker. The Court’s holding provides as follows: Harassment under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) focuses on situations in which the social environment of the workplace becomes intolerable because the harassment, whether verbal, physical, or visual, communicates an offensive message to the harassed employee. Whether the conduct of alleged harassers was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile or abusive working environment under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) depends on the totality of the circumstances, which may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. Common sense, and an appropriate sensibility to social context, will enable courts and juries to distinguish between simple teasing or roughhousing and conduct that a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would find severely hostile or abusive, as would support harassment liability under Fair Employment and Housing Act. As in sex-based harassment claims, to establish claims of workplace harassment based on national origin and religion the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s conduct would have interfered with a reasonable employee’s work performance and would have seriously affected the psychological well-being of a reasonable employee and that he or she was actually offended. When the harasser is a nonsupervisory employee, employer liability for harassment under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) turns on a showing of negligence, that is, that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take appropriate corrective action. Evidence of Indian coworker’s good treatment of two Caucasians, two Asians, and five Indians was insufficient to establish as an undisputed fact that coworker did not engage in discriminatory treatment or harassment of non-Indians, on employer’s motion for summary adjudication in Pakistani employee’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) harassment action, where there was evidence that Indian coworker “negatively” treated nine non-Indian employees.
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results