Rowland Heights Employment Lawyers
The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to fight for the rights of workers in Rowland Heights dealing with discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace. The firm also stands ready to provide small businesses in Rowland Heights 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 Rowland Heights, California
Rowland Heights is an unincorporated area in and below the Puente Hills in the San Gabriel Valley, in Los Angeles County. Rowland Heights covers approximately thirteen square miles and encompasses the following zip codes: 91748, 91765, and 91789. Rowland Heights is situated on the land formerly known as La Puente Rancho, a grant of nearly 49,000 acres awarded to American settlers John Rowland and William Workman, by the Mexican government in 1842. In 1851 the two men agreed to split the rancho lands between themselves, with Rowland taking possession of the 29,000 acres to the east and Workman the remaining lands to the west. Prior to 1960 the land was mostly agricultural and dotted with thousands of walnut, avocado, and citrus trees. Oil was discovered in the hills surrounding the community in 1884 and for the next 40 years the Puente Oil Company and its successors supplied oil to the Los Angeles Cable Railway and a beet sugar refinery in Chino. Beginning in 1960 the area began to change. Water led the way, then streets and eventually, the 60 Freeway. Farms eventually gave way to housing tracts and the population grew from about 4,500 in 1960, to approximately 60,000 today. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Burbank which is minutes away from Rowland Heights. Thus, our lawyers stand ready to serve employees and employers in Rowland Heights with all their employment law needs.
The Best Rowland Heights Employment Attorneys
Finding the right labor lawyer in Rowland Heights, California, can prove to be a rather daunting task, primarily owing to the vast array of law firms and attorneys vying for attention in the area. As a resident of Rowland Heights, you’re faced with a plethora of options when it comes to seeking legal representation for employment-related matters. Given this profusion of choices, it becomes imperative to meticulously select an attorney whose unique set of skills, expertise, and experience perfectly aligns with the specific nuances of your case. In the digital age, many individuals embark on their quest for legal counsel via online searches, employing keywords like “Rowland Heights employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Rowland Heights.” However, this seemingly straightforward pursuit can quickly become overwhelming, as the search results frequently yield an abundance of paid advertisements from lawyers and law firms clamoring for attention. This saturation of online offerings can render the process of identifying a legal representative who possesses the requisite acumen and experience for your particular case rather complex and bewildering. What further compounds this conundrum is the realization that not all attorneys are created equal, and each may harbor distinct inclinations and methodologies in their approach to handling labor-related disputes. Some legal practitioners might favor swift and amicable settlements that prioritize efficiency and simplicity, while others could advocate for a more protracted legal battle that ultimately secures a comprehensive and full-value resolution on behalf of their clients. It is at this juncture that the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., distinguishes itself through its unwavering commitment to a unique and client-centric ethos. Our team of highly skilled Rowland Heights labor lawyers subscribes to the belief that every client deserves the absolute best in legal representation, regardless of the intricacy or scope of their case. We are resolute in our dedication to delivering unparalleled quality, which invariably takes precedence over quantity. One distinctive hallmark of our approach is the deliberate limitation of our caseload, a strategic decision we undertake to ensure that each and every client we represent benefits from the undivided attention and meticulous detail we bring to their case. At the Akopyan Law Firm, we don’t just view our clients as case numbers; rather, we treat them as an extension of our own professional family, consistently delivering first-class personal service that is second to none in the legal realm. Our commitment to excellence is vividly reflected in the lasting and meaningful relationships we cultivate with our clients. Remarkably, these relationships often extend well beyond the conclusion of their respective cases, demonstrating our dedication to not just being legal representatives but steadfast advocates and allies. Our track record is one that speaks volumes, replete with exemplary results that underscore our fervent belief in advocating for our clients’ rights and ensuring that justice is served. If you find yourself in search of employment lawyers in Rowland Heights, we extend an earnest invitation for you to get in touch with us today. The Akopyan Law Firm stands ready, willing, and able to provide world-class legal services and top-tier representation to the residents of Rowland Heights, California, with offices strategically positioned to ensure accessibility and convenience.
Our Employment Lawyers Can Help Rowland Heights Residents With:
Featured Employment Case
King v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 426, 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 359 (2007)
A former supervisory employee of parcel delivery company brought action against employer for disability discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, breach of an implied contract to terminate only for good cause, and defamation, after he was terminated for allegedly falsifying a driver’s timecard in order to have driver work more hours than allowed by federal regulation. The Superior Court, Sacramento County, No. 03AS06925, Loren E. McCaster, J., entered summary judgment in favor of employer. Employee appealed. The Court of Appeal, Raye, J., held that: 1 employer honestly believed that employee committed an integrity violation such that employer’s reason for terminating employee was not pretext for disability discrimination; 2 the Superior Court was not precluded from considering evidence not expressly identified in the separate statement of undisputed facts; 3 employer did not terminate employee in bad faith so as to breach an implied contract to terminate only for good cause; 4 statements employer made to other workers regarding the reasons for employee’s termination were not defamatory under the “common interest” privilege; and 5 employer did not violate statutory reasonable accommodation requirements as employee did not make a specific request for accommodation. In part, the opinion discussed the applicable standard for summary judgment motions in employmetn cases: UPS, as the party moving for summary judgment, bears the initial burden of demonstrating that at least one of the elements of plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim is without merit. (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1518–1519, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 826 (Scalf ).)2 *433 We disagree with plaintiff **366 that UPS failed to offer any evidence to sustain its burden of proof. The trial court found UPS had fired plaintiff for a legitimate reason—he breached the company’s integrity policy. The evidence described at length above satisfies the employer’s burden to make a “ ‘sufficient showing of a legitimate reason for discharge.’ ” (Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 215, 225, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 487 (Hanson ).) According to UPS’s evidence, the decision makers entertained an honest belief that plaintiff had either personally falsified a driver’s timecard or directed the driver to do so. For purposes of establishing the moving employer’s initial burden of proof, it does not matter whether plaintiff actually did commit an integrity violation as long as UPS honestly believed he did. (Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc. (9th Cir.2002) 281 F.3d 1054, 1063 (Villiarimo ).) Once an employer satisfies its initial burden of proving the legitimacy of its reason for termination, the discharged employee seeking to avert summary judgment must present specific and substantial responsive evidence that the employer’s evidence was in fact insufficient or that there is a triable issue of fact material to the employer’s motive. (Hanson, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 225, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 487; Villiarimo, supra, 281 F.3d at p. 1062.) In other words, plaintiff must produce substantial responsive evidence to show that UPS’s ostensible motive was pretextual; that is, “that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or that the employer’s explanation is unworthy of credence.” (Chiaramonte v. Fashion Bed Group, Inc. (7th Cir.1997) 129 F.3d 391, 398 (Chiaramonte ).)
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results