Porter Ranch Employment Attorneys

The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the residents of Porter Ranch, California.

Porter Ranch, California

Porter Ranch is a neighborhood of the City of Los Angeles.  It is situated in the center-north section of the San Fernando Valley and is home to more than 30,000.00 Angelenos.  It covers approximately five and a half square miles and encompasses the zip code 91362.  Porter Ranch is one of the newest parts of Los Angeles, but has a storied past. In the late 19th century, Benjamin Porter purchased a part of the Rancho Ex-Mission San Fernando land grant in the foothills of the Santa Susanas above Northridge. Primarily wheat fields for its first several decades, the relatively isolated area later became the site of numerous movie stars’ horse ranches. Eventually suburban development reached Porter Ranch. The area was the last portion of the San Fernando Valley within the Los Angeles city limits to be developed, with major construction not occurring until the 1970s. Large portions of the 1982 blockbuster film E.T. the Extra-terrestrial were filmed in Porter Ranch. The Steven Spielberg classic includes several shots looking down on the Porter Ranch neighborhood beneath the ridge in Palisades Park. Brasilia Dr., Killimore Ave. and Granada Circle appear most often in E.T. Porter Ridge Park, at the north end of Reseda Blvd., was used for the famous park scene at the end of the movie. That park is now known by locals as “E.T. Park.”

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were two horse and rider statues which marked the unofficial entrance to Porter Ranch. One was located on the North West corner of Tampa and Devonshire. The other was on the North East corner of Devonshire and Tunney. They were eventually removed to allow more residential development. There were reports about one of the statues being found in a trash dumpster many years later, although the actual whereabouts of the statues has remained a mystery.

Much of Porter Ranch is master-planned new communities, with many gated areas, and was developed by Nathan Shapell, Chairman & CEO of Shapell Industries, along with brother, David, and brother-in-law, Max Webb. Born in Poland, Nathan Shapell spent World War II as a prisoner of the infamous Buchenwald and Auschwitz Concentration Camps where most of his family was killed. After WWII he helped thousands of Holocaust survivors in Germany, building housing complexes for the displaced war survivors, and representing them before American military panels that decided on their applications to immigrate to the United States. He became one of the region’s biggest homebuilders and a major philanthropist in California, the United States, and Israel. He died in 2007 at age 85.

Today, Porter Ranch is mostly gated communities of single-family homes. Most residents commute by car to business hubs of Simi Valley, Downtown Los Angeles and the commercial hub of Woodland Hills, at the San Fernando Valley’s southwest corner. The community is also close to the Chatsworth and Northridge Metrolink stations that link to Downtown Los Angeles and Ventura County.

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles which is minutes away from Porter Ranch. The Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. stands ready to provide legal services to both employees and employers in Porter Ranch.

The Best Porter Ranch Wrongful Termination Lawyer

Porter Ranch, California, is a thriving residential community that may not have a multitude of local lawyers and law firms available within its boundaries. When residents of Porter Ranch encounter employment-related legal issues, they often turn to online resources to find suitable legal representation. However, conducting a Google search for “Porter Ranch employment lawyer” may yield a list of paid advertisements from employment lawyers located in surrounding areas like downtown Los Angeles or the westside.

Selecting the right attorney with the necessary expertise and experience becomes challenging when relying on paid advertisements from non-local attorneys. Locating a lawyer well-versed in employment law and skilled in handling such disputes may not be as straightforward as it appears.

At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each of our attorneys boasts nearly two decades of experience. We have established a strong track record of success, advocating for the rights and interests of both employers and employees. Our firm prioritizes quality over quantity, emphasizing a commitment to delivering exceptional legal services.

Unlike firms that invest heavily in advertising campaigns, we focus on providing top-tier representation rather than promotional activities. We encourage you not to solely rely on our word but to reach out to us for client references and explore online reviews to verify our reputation. With offices located just minutes away from Porter Ranch, we are fully prepared to offer the residents of Porter Ranch access to high-caliber legal representation, ensuring their legal needs are met with the utmost expertise and dedication.

We Can Help Porter Ranch Residents With Employment Law Disputes, Including Those Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc., 188 Cal. App. 4th 297, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 (2010)

A former employee brought action against employer for disability and age discrimination under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the employer. The employee appealed. The Court of Appeal, Aaron, J., held that: (1) the employee raised fact issue as to whether he was disabled; (2) the employee raised fact issue as whether performance issues proffered by employer were the real reasons for employee’s termination; (3) the employee made prima facie showing that he was performing satisfactorily; and (4) the employee made prima facie showing of circumstances giving rise to inference of unlawful discrimination. The Court explained its conclusion that Sandell presented evidence that he is “disabled” under FEHA as follows: “Under FEHA, a person is “physically disabled” when he or she has a physiological condition that “limits a major life activity.” (Govt.Code, § 12926, subd. (k)(1)(B), italics added.) “[A] qualifying disease or condition ‘limits a major life activity if it makes the achievement’ of the activity ‘difficult.’ [Citation.]” (Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1019, 1027, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 662, 63 P.3d 220, fn. omitted (Colmenares ).) “ ‘Limits’ shall be determined without regard to mitigating measures such as medications, assistive devices, prosthetics, or reasonable accommodations, unless the mitigating measure itself **465 limits a major life activity.” (Gov.Code, § 12926, subd. (k)(1)(B)(i).)  It is clear that walking is a major life activity under FEHA. (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7293.6, subd. (e)(1)(A)(2)(a) [“ ‘Major Life Activities’ are functions such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” (Italics added.) ].) Sandell presented abundant evidence that his ability to walk after his stroke was impaired, and that from the time of his stroke to the time Taylor–Listug terminated his employment, he required a cane as an assistive device. Sandell thus presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he was limited in his ability to walk—a major life activity—and, therefore, that he suffered from a disability at the time his employment was terminated. Despite the fact that it is undisputed that Sandell required a cane to walk, Taylor–Listug nevertheless argues that Sandell failed to establish that he is disabled. We disagree. At a minimum, evidence that an individual requires a cane in order to walk is clearly sufficient to establish that a person is physically disabled under California law.  Taylor–Listug cites McDonald v. Coldwell Banker (9th Cir.2008) 543 F.3d 498, 505 fn. 6, (McDonald ), in support of its position that “while Sandell’s condition may have affected his gait, he was not disabled.” In dictum, the McDonald court stated: “It should be noted that McDonald, who asserts disability by virtue of her use of a walking cane, has not produced any evidence of being disabled within the meaning of the Unruh Act, which requires any ‘physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that does both of the following: (A) [a]ffects one or more of the following body systems: neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, … and (B) [l]imits a major life activity.’ See Cal. Gov.Code § 12926(k)(1)(A)–(B)…. The only evidence of disability presented by McDonald is that she uses a cane; this, alone, does not establish that a ‘major life activity’ has been limited. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102; see also Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 564–66, 119 S.Ct. 2162, 144 L.Ed.2d 518 (1999) (holding that to be ‘disabled’ under the Americans with Disability Act (‘ADA’) one must have ‘limitations that are in fact substantial’ and because every determination of whether an individual is disabled is ‘case-by-case,’ particularized evidence is needed).” (McDonald, supra, 543 F.3d at p. 505, fn. 6.) The McDonald court did not, in our view, properly interpret California law on the subject of the meaning of “disability” under FEHA. Although the McDonald court believed that it was applying the provisions of FEHA in rejecting a plaintiff’s use of a cane as evidencing a disability, that court incorrectly relied on federal legal standards in reaching this conclusion. As noted above, California law and federal law differ with respect to the standard for establishing a disability, in that federal law requires a showing of a “substantial limitation,” while FEHA requires only that the condition “limits” a major life activity. (Colmenares, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 1025–1027, 1030, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 662, 63 P.3d 220[“[A] physical disability under the FEHA does not require the federal test’s substantial limitation of a major life activity. [Citation.] … [T]he FEHA’s test [is] ‘limits,’ not substantial limits.”].) We therefore reject the McDonald court’s conclusion that evidence of the use of a cane by one asserting disability discrimination is necessarily insufficient to demonstrate that he or she suffers from a “disability” under California law. One could reasonably infer from evidence that a person uses a cane to walk that he needs the cane to walk, and is therefore limited with respect to a major life activity, as defined under FEHA. In addition to evidence concerning Sandell’s need to use a cane, Sandell also presented evidence that his speech was impaired as a result of his stroke. Speaking, like walking, is deemed to be a major life activity under California law. (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7293.6, subd. (e)(1)(A)(2)(a).) Taylor–Listug’s only response to Sandell’s evidence regarding his impaired speech is its contention that “[e]ven though Sandell may have spoken with a more deliberate pace, his condition did not limit his ability to speak.” However, the evidence is clearly sufficient for a fact finder to conclude that Sandell’s stroke caused him to have difficulty speaking, and that he was thus limited in this major life activity, as well.

 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