Placentia Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to fight for the rights of workers in Placentia dealing with discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace. The firm also stands ready to provide small businesses in Placentia economical and efficient solutions to problems involving employment law.  Our substantial experience in approaching employment disputes from both sides gives us rare insight into the mindset of the opponent, which truly goes a long way to achieving the best possible outcome.

About Placentia, California

Placentia is a city located in Orange County.  It is home to more than 45,000 residents.  It covers approximately six square miles and encompasses the following zip codes: 92870, 92871.   Placentia’s rich history began in 1837 when the governor of Mexico granted the Rancho San Juan Cajon De Santa Ana to Juan Ontiveros. This land grant included the area that today comprises Placentia, Anaheim, Brea, and Fullerton. Placentia’s first pioneer was Daniel Kraemer, who purchased 3900 acres in 1865. Three years later, William McFadden and his wife, Sarah Jane, acquired 100 additional acres in the area. Many other settlers arrived in the following years. Residents built churches and schools as the community slowly developed. The school district’s original name was the Cajon School District. In 1878, at the suggestion of Sarah Jane McFadden, the name was changed to the Placentia School District. Placentia is derived from a Latin word meaning “pleasant place to live.” The city name came from that change. Placentia was placed on the map in 1910 when A.S. Bradford persuaded the Santa Fe Railroad to re-route their track through this area, thus shortening the rail distance to Los Angeles. A station was built and packing houses were established for the town’s growing citrus industry. Mr. Bradford and Richard Melrose laid out the main streets of the town and, in his honor, Bradford Avenue and Melrose Avenue retain their names today. Placentia’s climate and rich land attracted an ever-growing number of new residents. The area was well suited for raising citrus fruit, walnuts, avocados, and grapes. Placentia became the center of Valencia Orange Growing and Packing, and its 500 citizens voted to incorporate the City in 1926. In 1960, Placentia’s population had reached only 5,000; however, a phenomenal growth period was just beginning. By 1970, the population had increased five-fold to nearly 25,000. Today, Placentia is still a fast-growing community with 45,000 residents, beautiful suburban homes, good schools, stately churches, and wholesome recreation.

Do You Need To Find The Best Placentia Employment Attorneys?

Placentia, California, offers its residents numerous choices when it comes to labor lawyers and employment attorneys. The city has a variety of law firms and lawyers providing legal services, making it essential for individuals facing labor-related legal challenges to select the right attorney. However, this decision can be challenging, given the multitude of options and the prevalence of paid online advertisements from lawyers who may not prioritize their clients’ best interests.

Conducting an internet search for “employment lawyer Placentia” or “wrongful termination attorney in Placentia” often yields numerous paid advertisements from lawyers who may prefer quick and easy low-value settlements over the pursuit of a full-value resolution. It can be difficult for individuals to distinguish whether a particular attorney possesses the expertise and experience necessary to navigate employment law disputes effectively.

The labor lawyers at the Akopyan Law Firm are dedicated to achieving the best possible outcomes for each client, regardless of the scope or complexity of the case. Our commitment to delivering high-quality legal representation requires us to limit our practice, ensuring that every client receives the personalized attention and care they deserve. When you become a client of the Akopyan Law Firm, you become part of our family.

We take great pride in providing top-tier personal service to our clients and building lasting relationships. We encourage you to explore the testimonials and reviews from our clients to gain insights into their experiences with us. Our clients’ satisfaction and the results we achieve for them are testaments to our passion and dedication as Placentia employment lawyers.

If you are seeking employment lawyers in Placentia, please do not hesitate to contact us today for a complimentary case evaluation. With offices conveniently located in Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Placentia, ready to offer world-class services and exceptional representation to the residents of Placentia.

Placentia Residents Can Call Our Attorneys For Help With:

Featured Employment Case

Swanson v. Morongo Unified Sch. Dist., 232 Cal. App. 4th 954, 181 Cal. Rptr. 3d 553 (2014), as modified on denial of reh’g (Dec. 23, 2014)
A former probationary teacher sued the school district under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for discrimination based on medical condition and physical disability, denial of reasonable accommodation, and refusal to engage in the interactive process. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the district. The teacher appealed. The Court of Appeal, Aronson, J., held that: (1) fact issue existed as to whether school district intentionally discriminated against teacher due to her breast cancer; (2) FEHA could impose duty for school district to give teacher an open position for which she was already trained if her cancer treatments limited her ability to retrain; and (3) fact issue existed as to whether district engaged in the interactive process.  The opinion observed that: Neither a teacher’s probationary status nor a school district’s discretion to make teaching assignments deprives the teacher of the Fair Employment and Housing Act’s (FEHA) protections or otherwise allows the school district to unlawfully discriminate against her. The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff’s disability.  When a probationary elementary school teacher requested assignment to a grade level for which she was already trained as an accommodation for her breast cancer which required radiation and chemotherapy treatments and limited teacher’s time to retrain for a new grade level, Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) imposed a duty on school district to assign the teacher to an open position in a grade level for which she was already trained unless the position was not available or otherwise was not a reasonable accommodation, or unless the alternative assignments the district offered to the teacher were reasonable accommodations that would have allowed the teacher to adequately perform her essential job functions. Liability under “interactive process” provision of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) hinges on the objective circumstances surrounding breakdown in communication between employer and employee, and responsibility for the breakdown lies with the party who fails to participate in good faith. The fact that an employer took some steps to work with an employee to identify reasonable accommodations does not absolve the employer of liability under the reasonable accommodation provision of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); if the employer is responsible for a later breakdown in the process, it may be held liable.

 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