San Bernardino Employment Attorneys
Our seasoned employment lawyers are prepared to enforce and protect the rights of San Bernardino residents.
About San Bernardino
San Bernardino is city located in San Bernardino County. San Bernardino covers three square miles. It is home to roughly 222,000 residents. San Bernardino lies within zip codes 92401, 92402, 92403, 92403, 92404, 92405, 92405, 92406, 92407, 92408, 92410, 92411, 92412, 92413, 92414, 92415, 92418, 92420, 92423, 92424, 92427. San Bernardino’s history dates back to the early 19th century when Spanish missionaries settled in the region and established Mission San Gabriel. In 1810, Father Francisco Dumetz set up an altar in the San Bernardino Valley, naming the area “San Bernardino” after Saint Bernardino of Siena. The mission period came to an end in 1834 when all missions were ordered closed, but the area continued to thrive as a trading post on the Spanish Trail. Pioneer trailblazers like Kit Carson and Jedediah Smith passed through the valley during those years. In 1851, a group of Mormons arrived in the valley and established Fort San Bernardino, purchasing land and building a stockade to protect against Indian attacks. They eventually built homes, a grain mill, and other infrastructure, contributing to the growth of the area. In 1854, the City of San Bernardino was officially incorporated, with a population of 1,200, including 900 Mormons. The city was known for its temperance policies, prohibiting drinking and gambling. Brigham Young recalled the Mormons to Salt Lake City in 1857, but some chose to stay and continue building the community. Gold was discovered in Holcomb Valley in 1860, leading to a rush of settlers to the area. San Bernardino nearly became the county seat during this time. The late 19th century saw the arrival of major railway companies like the Santa Fe, Union Pacific, and Southern Pacific, transforming San Bernardino into a bustling city and transportation hub. A rate war among the railways brought a significant influx of newcomers to the region. One of San Bernardino’s well-known landmarks is the arrowhead on the mountainside, which has both legends and geological explanations surrounding its origin. Over the years, San Bernardino experienced periods of growth and challenges, but it has evolved into a modern, urban center with a bright future, reflecting the enduring spirit of its pioneers.
How San Bernardino Residents Can Find The Best Employment Lawyer
If you’re residing in San Bernardino and find yourself in need of legal representation, you have several avenues to explore when searching for the right attorney: Start by asking friends, family, or colleagues for recommendations. People within your network may have had positive experiences with lawyers and can provide valuable insights. The internet is a powerful tool for finding legal professionals. A simple online search using specific keywords, such as “wrongful termination attorney San Bernardino,” can yield a list of potential lawyers in your area. You may have noticed eye-catching billboard advertisements for lawyers around town. While these advertisements can grab your attention, it’s important to remember that they are just a starting point. Don’t solely rely on billboards; use them as a stepping stone to gather more information. No matter which approach you choose, the key to making an informed decision is to verify that the attorney you’re considering possesses the necessary skills, experience, and track record to handle your specific legal needs. Legal matters can be intricate and have far-reaching consequences, so having a capable lawyer by your side is essential.
The Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., is a highly reputable law firm with a strong presence near San Bernardino. Our dedicated team of employment lawyers boasts nearly two decades of experience, during which we’ve successfully represented both employees and employers in a wide range of cases. Our commitment to quality legal services has earned us recognition for our excellence.
With convenient offices located in Riverside, Orange, and Burbank, we are just minutes away from San Bernardino. Our employment lawyers are well-prepared to provide world-class legal assistance and top-notch representation to the residents of San Bernardino. When you choose us, you can rest assured that you have a seasoned legal team on your side, ready to protect your interests and pursue the best possible outcome for your case.
We Can Help San Bernardino Residents With:
Featured Employment Case
Abed v. W. Dental Servs., Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 726, 233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 242 (2018)
A dental assistant externship holder brought action against the employer, alleging that the employer falsely told the externship holder that no full-time dental assistant position was available, in violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Superior Court granted summary adjudication to employer. The externship holder appealed. The Court of Appeal, Humes, P.J., held that: 1 externship holder’s failure to apply for full-time dental assistant position did not per se defeat her failure-to-hire claim of discrimination, and 2 genuine issue of material fact as to whether employer acted with discriminatory animus in telling externship holder that there was no opening for a full-time dental assistant position precluded summary judgment. In part the Court’s opinion states as follow: Under the FEHA, it is unlawful for an employer to engage in adverse employment practices against a person on the basis of “sex” (Gov. Code, § 12940, subds. (a)-(d), (j)), a term defined to include “[p]regnancy or medical conditions related to pregnancy.” (Id., § 12926, subd. (r)(1)(A).)3 *736 Specifically, under section 12940, subdivision (a), the provision on which Abed relies, an employer cannot, based on a person’s pregnancy, (1) “refuse to hire or employ the person or … refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment”; (2) “bar or … discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment”; or (3) “discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” Failure-to-hire claims under the FEHA are subject to the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (McDonnell Douglas). (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 860, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 732 (Serri); see also Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089 (Guz).) The McDonnell Douglas framework “reflects the principle that direct evidence of intentional discrimination is rare, and that such claims must usually be proved circumstantially. Thus, by successive steps of increasingly narrow focus, the test allows discrimination to be inferred from facts that create a reasonable likelihood of bias and are not satisfactorily explained.” (Guz, at p. 354, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.) **249 A plaintiff has the initial burden of producing evidence that establishes a prima facie case of discrimination. (Ibid.) Although “[t]he specific elements of a prima facie case may vary depending on the particular facts,” the plaintiff in a failure-to-hire case “[g]enerally … must provide evidence that (1) he [or she] was a member of a protected class, (2) he [or she] was qualified for the position he [or she] sought …, (3) he [or she] suffered an adverse employment action, such as … denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive,” such as that the position remained open and the employer continued to solicit applications for it. (Guz, at p. 355, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089; Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 138, 149, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 112.)
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results