Rosemead Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to fight for the rights of workers in Rosemead dealing with discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace. The firm also stands ready to provide small businesses in Rosemead 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 Rosemead, California

Rosemead is a city located to the east of downtown Los Angeles and is home to 60,000 residents.  It covers approximately five square miles and encompasses the following zip codes: 91770, 91771, 91772, and 91776. John Guess and his wife, Harriet, arrived in the San Gabriel Valley in 1852 in an ox-drawn wagon from Arkansas. They settled in 1855 on a 100-acre ranch called Savannah on the site of what is now Savannah School. Others followed, including Frank Frost and Leonard Rose. Rose purchased 500 to 700 acres to breed and train horses and called his place Rose’s Meadow, which was shortened to Rosemead and gave the city it’s name.  Small truck farms and chicken and rabbit ranches became popular and the city incorporated in 1959. The quiet, pastoral lands are now crowded with businesses, industries, and shops. Once a lush green pasture extending from the Los Angeles River east to the Pomona area, Rosemead was indeed a fine place for early settlers to raise fruits, vegetables, grain and feed. Today, the city boasts that its goals include the improvement of quality of life offered in Rosemead in a business-friendly atmosphere conducive to continued economic growth and prosperity. The city offers a desirable and affordable community in which to live and a dynamic and expanding business sector that is an economic growth engine for West Coast commerce. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles which is minutes away from Rosemead.  Thus, our lawyers stand ready to serve employees and employers in Rosemead with all their employment law needs.

The Way To Identify The Best Rosemead Employment Attorneys

Finding the right labor lawyer in Rosemead, California, can be a challenging task due to the multitude of law firms and attorneys offering their services in the area. Rosemead residents have various options to choose from when seeking legal representation, making it crucial to find an attorney who is the right fit for their specific case. Online searches for terms like “Rosemead employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Rosemead” often result in numerous paid advertisements from attorneys and law firms, making it difficult for individuals to discern which lawyer has the necessary skills and experience to handle their case effectively. Many attorneys may prefer quick and easy settlements rather than pursuing a more extensive legal battle to achieve a full-value resolution for their clients. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we take a different approach. Our Rosemead labor lawyers are dedicated to achieving the best possible outcome for each client, regardless of the complexity of the case or the level of effort required. We prioritize quality over quantity, limiting our practice to a select number of cases to ensure that every client receives the personalized attention they deserve. Our commitment to providing top-notch legal services is reflected in the relationships we build with our clients, which often extend beyond the conclusion of their cases. We take pride in the first-class personal service we offer and encourage potential clients to review the excellent results we have achieved for our clients. If you are searching for employment lawyers in Rosemead, we invite you to contact us today for a complimentary case evaluation. At the Akopyan Law Firm, we fight passionately for our clients’ rights and are prepared to provide dedicated representation to residents of Rosemead, California.

Our Employment Law Practice Includes:

Featured Employment Case

Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 165 Cal. App. 4th 686, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 406 (2008)
An employee brought action against employer, alleging national origin discrimination, retaliation, and defamation. The Superior Court, Santa Clara County, No. CV053162, Kevin E. McKenney, J., granted employer’s motion for summary adjudication, and employee appealed. The Court of Appeal, Rushing, P.J., held that: 1 employee established prima facie case required to trigger presumptions of discrimination on basis of national origin and of retaliation; 2 triable issues of fact as to discriminatory animus precluded summary adjudication in favor of employer on wrongful termination claim; 3 conflicting and apparently contrived nature of evidence of employer’s asserted lawful motive for termination permitted inference that employer’s motive was unlawful; 4 statements challenged as defamatory were not non-actionable statements of opinion; 5 employer failed to establish that statements challenged as defamatory were substantially true; and 6 triable issues of fact with respect to malice precluded summary adjudication in favor of employer on basis of its claim of statutory qualified privilege.  The Court’s opinion states in part as follows:  “As we have noted, the presumption of an unlawful employment practice arising from the employee’s presentation of a “ ‘prima facie case’ ” affects only the burden of production, i.e., “the employer may dispel the presumption merely by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action. [Citation.] At that point the presumption disappears. [Citation.]” (Reeves, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 111–112, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 717.) The plaintiff then bears the burden of persuasion with respect to all elements of the cause of the action, including the existence and causal role of discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Some courts have muddied the waters by stating that once the employer cites a reason, the “ultimate issue” is whether the cited reason was a “pretext.” (Muzquiz v. City of Emeryville (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1117, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 579; Taub v. Fleishman–Hillard, Inc. (9th Cir.2007) 256 Fed.Appx. 170, 172; Hugley v. Art Institute of Chicago (N.D.Ill.1998) 3 F.Supp.2d 900, 906, fn. 7.) We have criticized this view before. (Reeves, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 111, fn. 11, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 717.) While “pretext” is certainly a relevant issue in a case of this kind, making it a central or necessary issue is not sound. The central issue is and should remain whether the evidence as a whole supports a reasoned inference that the challenged action was the product of discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The employer’s mere articulation of a legitimate reason for the action cannot answer this question; it can only dispel the presumption of improper motive that would otherwise entitle the employee to a judgment in his favor. Thus, citing a legitimate reason for the challenged action will entitle the employer to summary judgment only when the employee’s showing, while sufficient to invoke the presumption, is too weak to sustain a reasoned inference in the employee’s favor. That, and not “pretext,” must be the focus of the judicial inquiry. However, evidence that the employer’s claimed reason is false—such as that it conflicts with other evidence, or appears to have been contrived after the fact—will tend to suggest that the employer seeks to conceal the real reason for its actions, and this in turn may support an inference that the real reason was unlawful. This does not mean that the factfinder can examine the employer’s stated reasons and impose liability solely because they are found wanting. But it can take account of manifest weaknesses in the cited reasons in considering whether those reasons constituted the real motive for the employer’s actions, or have instead been asserted to mask a more sinister reality.”

 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