Rancho Mirage Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the rights of the residents of Rancho Mirage.
Rancho Mirage, California
Rancho Mirage is city located in Riverside County. Rancho Mirage covers twenty five square miles but is home to roughly 17,000 residents. Rancho Mirage lies within zip code 92270. Rancho Mirage is known for its upscale and leisurely lifestyle, making it a popular destination for retirees, vacationers, and those seeking a luxurious desert escape. Its combination of natural beauty, recreational opportunities, and cultural attractions makes it an attractive place to visit and live in the Coachella Valley. Rancho Mirage is renowned for its world-class golf courses and resorts. The city is home to several prestigious golf clubs and has hosted numerous professional golf tournaments, including the LPGA ANA Inspiration, a major championship in women’s golf. The city features a number of luxury resorts and spas that cater to tourists seeking relaxation and upscale amenities. These resorts often offer pools, fine dining, and spa treatments in a beautiful desert setting. Rancho Mirage is also known for its cultural attractions, including the Palm Springs Art Museum in Palm Desert and the Sunnylands Center & Gardens, which was the winter residence of Walter and Leonore Annenberg and has hosted numerous dignitaries and world leaders.
The Best Employment Lawyer in Rancho Mirage
Rancho Mirage residents have a multitude of options when it comes to choosing lawyers, but making the right selection can be a daunting task. Conducting an online search for “employment lawyer Rancho Mirage” or “wrongful termination attorney Rancho Mirage” often results in a list of paid advertisements from employment lawyers located far and wide. Deciphering whether a particular attorney possesses the necessary expertise and experience in employment trials and litigation can be challenging when the decision is solely based on an online ad.
Each attorney at the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. boasts nearly two decades of experience and a proven track record of success representing both employees and employers. Our firm’s ethos prioritizes quality over quantity. We emphasize providing the highest caliber legal representation. With our offices located just minutes away from Rancho Mirage, we are fully prepared to offer residents top-notch legal services.
The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. has additional offices in Riverside, Orange, and Burbank, ensuring convenient access to our employment lawyers. When you choose our firm, you can be confident that you are enlisting experienced and dedicated legal professionals who are well-versed in employment law matters. Whether you are an employee seeking justice or an employer in need of skilled representation, our attorneys are ready to deliver world-class services to meet your legal needs.
We Can Help With:
Featured Employment Case
Iwekaogwu v. City of Los Angeles, 75 Cal. App. 4th 803, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 505 (1999)
A city employee sued the city under California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) on theories including retaliation. Following jury trial, the Superior Court, Los Angeles County, No. BC 140265, Ernest M. Hiroshige, J., entered judgment for employee on retaliation claim after employee accepted remittitur reducing damages award to $500,000. City appealed. The Court of Appeal, Kuhl, J., held that: (1) jury could find that city retaliated against employee for threatening to file racial discrimination action; (2) juror’s misconduct in reporting to jury that she had discussed facts of case with husband, a union representative, and he had told her they showed retaliation did not infect jury’s verdict; (3) one juror’s alleged rude and insulting comments, same juror’s description of instances of discrimination he had observed, another juror’s comment that damages award should set an example, and jury’s consideration of damages awards suggested by individual jurors did not rise to level of misconduct; and (4) damages award after remittitur was not excessive. Jury’s finding that city retaliated against engineer for threatening to file race discrimination action against harbor department was supported by evidence that supervisor told engineer he should leave structural design section because supervisor considered him a litigant and a filer of discrimination complaints, that second-level supervisor categorically denied engineer’s allegations of discrimination without conducting investigation and further told him not to expect any promotions, that engineer was the only one in his section whose overtime requests were denied during particular year, and that his performance was criticized even though his supervisor did not even review performance evaluations of person he hired to fill structural engineering associate position. At least three types of evidence can be used, in claim of retaliation asserted under California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), to show employer’s explanations for challenged actions are pretextual: (1) direct evidence of retaliation, such as statements or admissions, (2) comparative evidence, and (3) statistics. Direct evidence of retaliation, in action under California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), may consist of remarks made by decisionmakers displaying a retaliatory motive. For purposes of claim under California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an individual employment decision should not be treated as a watertight compartment, with discriminatory statements in the course of one decision somehow sealed off from, i.e., irrelevant to, every other decision.
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results