Reseda Employment Lawyers
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in Reseda, California.
Reseda, California
Reseda is one of the larger neighborhoods in the City of Los Angeles. It is situated in the western half of the San Fernando Valley and is home to more than 70,000 Angelenos. It covers almost six square miles and encompasses zip code 91335. Reseda is very accessible from major freeways such as the 101 and the 405, which makes it a great place to live for folks who want a quick launch point to many areas of the Los Angeles County area. Much like the rest of the Los Angeles area, Reseda enjoys a mostly Mediterranean climate. This means mild temperatures and low humidity throughout most of the year. However, the summers can definitely get hot, with temperatures hitting the 100s in the summertime. For shopping and dining, Reseda has quite a lot of options to choose from that Reseda residents have come to love. The Reseda Boulevard Corridor is home to many small businesses, including restaurants, cafes, shops, grocery stores, and even some taco trucks scattered throughout the area. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles which is minutes away from Reseda. Thus, the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. offers legal services to both employees and employers in the Reseda area.
Tips for Finding The Best Employment Lawyers in Reseda
Because of its central location, Reseda offers its residents many choices in terms of lawyers. There are countless lawyers and law firms offering their services to Reseda residents. In fact, some of them would break down your door and rush into your living room to make a sales pitch if they could. When employers and employees in Reseda face serious legal issues, and real-world legal challenges involving employment law, the difficulty they face is knowing which lawyer is the right choice for them. The search can be made even more difficult by the constant onslaught of gimmicky radio ads and cheesy posters plastered on billboards, buses, and street benches. Most folks will try to find someone online, but an online search for “Reseda employment lawyer” or “best Reseda attorney” may lead to search results replete with paid advertisements from billboard lawyers. For certain cases, a billboard lawyer may be an excellent choice. There are, however, other cases which require quality representation of the highest caliber from experienced counsel. Each attorney at the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. has almost two decades of experience. Our lawyers have a proven track record of success for both employers and employees. The firm’s approach is to focus on quality, not quantity. Our lawyers prefer to spend our time in the courtroom fighting for their clients’ rights, instead of the recording studio recording catchy radio ads. We don’t want you to take our word for it; We will gladly provide client references upon request. You can of course also check out our reviews online. With offices just minutes away from Reseda, we stand ready to provide legal representation of the highest caliber to residents of Reseda.
We Can Help Folks in Reseda With Labor Disputes Involving:
Featured Employment Case
Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 166 Cal. App. 4th 952, 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190 (2008)
A former employee brought action against employer for employment discrimination based on disability, national origin, and ethnicity in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), for retaliation in violation of FEHA, and for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco, No. 437680, Ronald Evans Quidachay, J., and Bruce E. Chan, Commissioner, granted summary judgment for employer. Employee appealed. The Court of Appeal, Reardon, J., held that: 1 fact issue existed as to whether employee was able to work; 2 physician’s opinion that employee could work in specified job positions was not inadmissible or purely speculative; but 3 discovery as to all vacant positions at all of employer’s stores was properly denied; but 4 limiting discovery to only two stores where employee had worked was abuse of discretion; but 5 FEHA “reasonable accommodation” requirement applies only where employee can perform essential job functions with or without accommodation; 6 employee bears burden of proving ability to perform essential job functions; 7 FEHA “interactive process” requirement applies only where reasonable accommodation is possible; 8 employee bears burden of proving reasonable accommodation is possible; but 9 fact issue existed as to whether employer bore responsibility for breakdowns in interactive process; but 10 employer’s proffered reasons for firing employee were not pretext for retaliation; but 11 employee established prima facie case of national origin and ethnicity discrimination; and 12 fact issue existed on national origin and ethnicity discrimination. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded.
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results