San Clemente Employment Lawyers
The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to fight for the rights of workers in San Clemente dealing with discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace. The firm also stands ready to provide small businesses in San Clemente 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 San Clemente, California
San Clemente is the southernmost city in Orange County. It covers almost twenty square miles and encompasses the following zip codes: 92672, 92673, and 92674. Unlike so many other communities, San Clemente’s geographical isolation helped protect its small-town charm from the homogeneous urban sprawl that permeates so much of this region. As town founder Ole Hanson said in the late 1920s, “I get credit for building San Clemente. I am doing my best, but San Clemente’s development was as natural as a well-watered and fertilized tree to grow. It is on the coast. Its climate is superb. It is far enough from San Diego and Los Angeles to fill a real necessity. Besides, people love the beautiful things.” People indeed love beautiful places and the boom in San Clemente’s population, this year reaching 67,892 reflects the popularity of San Clemente and the development that has transformed all of Orange County in the past century. However, San Clemente started and has evolved differently than many of its neighboring communities. San Clemente was among the first master planned communities built from totally open land in the United States. Before erecting a single structure on the rolling coastal hills, Ole Hanson laid out an expansive plan based on the Spanish Colonial architectural style including restaurants, a clubhouse, residences, public parks, a public pool, a fishing pier, and even equestrian trails. Many thought Hanson had lost his mind, investing so much effort to build a community an hour’s distance from either Los Angeles or San Diego, the only two major cities in Southern California at the time. In fact, his initial plan submission to the Orange County Board of Supervisors was rejected—the Board simply couldn’t imagine funding public streets when no building had yet been built. But that didn’t stop Hanson. He opted to retain ownership of the roads, and in a stroke of marketing genius (or perhaps deception) Hanson whitewashed the unpaved roads to make them appear as clean, new concrete in the aerial photos he commissioned for his marketing brochures. Hanson did not allow deviation from his Spanish Village dream. On a rainy day in December 1925, Ole Hanson managed to attract 600 people from Los Angeles and beyond to hear his real estate spiel. He chartered luxury limousines to transport prospective buyers; others were attracted by the free hot meals that accompanied his presentation. That was the birth of San Clemente, when average lots sold for $300. Prime lots went for $1,500. Within the first six months, Hanson set a record by selling 1,200 lots. Hanson was as “hands-on” as land developers get. Every home ownership deed mandated that residents comply with stringent Spanish Colonial Revival style guidelines, enforcing uniform handmade red tile roofs and whitewashed stucco walls. A tile and wrought iron foundry was even established in town to meet the needs of the rapidly growing community. Hanson did not allow deviation from his Spanish Village dream. In fact, if a home was built that didn’t comply with his guidelines, he would either pay for its remodeling or purchase it himself to rebuild in accordance. Today, the Spanish Village by the Sea is more heterogeneous than Hanson had envisioned, but historic homeowners and current planning and development all reflect increasing esteem for his red-roofed, white-walled Spanish architecture dream. As San Clemente grows, people increasingly look to the past to anchor their sense of local identity. Historic homeowners must abide by city codes that protect the aesthetic spirit and style of early San Clemente. New development east of the 5 freeway now elevates Spanish Colonial Revival architecture to new interpretations, incorporating red roofs, balconies, and promenades as the demographics of San Clemente shift and new residents are drawn to the Mediterranean charm of this community. City development officials have leveraged new growth to funnel money into programs that reinvigorate and restore the historic downtown.
Where To Find The Best San Clemente Employment Attorneys
The quest for the right labor lawyer in San Clemente, California, often proves to be a challenging endeavor, mainly due to the myriad of options available. San Clemente is home to numerous law firms and attorneys, each offering their services to residents who find themselves entangled in the complexities of employment-related legal matters. Yet, the process of selecting the most suitable attorney for a particular case can be a formidable task, given the unique approach and methodologies adopted by each firm.
In the digital age, many individuals turn to the internet in their pursuit of legal counsel, employing search queries such as “employment lawyer San Clemente” or “wrongful termination attorney in San Clemente.” However, this seemingly straightforward path can quickly lead to a deluge of paid advertisements from lawyers and law firms vying for attention. Navigating through this sea of options can make it challenging to identify an attorney who possesses the precise skills and experience tailored to a specific case’s intricacies.
Compounding this complexity is the understanding that not all attorneys are cut from the same cloth, and each may have a unique perspective when it comes to addressing labor-related disputes. Some legal practitioners may prioritize expediency, favoring swift and amicable settlements that resolve issues with minimal conflict. In contrast, others may advocate for a more protracted legal battle, aiming to secure a comprehensive and full-value resolution on behalf of their clients.
This is where the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., stands apart, driven by an unwavering commitment to a distinct and client-centered philosophy. Our team of highly skilled San Clemente labor lawyers firmly believes that every client deserves nothing less than the absolute best in legal representation, regardless of the complexity or scope of their case. Our unwavering dedication to delivering exceptional quality consistently takes precedence over quantity.
A notable hallmark of our approach is our conscious decision to limit our caseload, ensuring 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 merely view our clients as case files; instead, we treat them as valued members of our professional family, consistently delivering a level of personal service that sets the industry standard.
Our commitment to excellence is reflected in the enduring and meaningful relationships we build with our clients. Remarkably, these relationships often extend far beyond the resolution of their respective cases, exemplifying our dedication to being more than just legal representatives. We are staunch advocates and steadfast allies for our clients’ rights and interests.
Our track record is a testament to our unwavering belief in fighting vigorously for our clients. If you find yourself searching for employment lawyers in San Clemente, we cordially invite you to reach out to us today. The Akopyan Law Firm is poised and ready to provide world-class legal services and top-tier representation to the residents of San Clemente, California. Our strategically located offices in Orange, Burbank, and Riverside ensure accessibility and convenience for our valued clients.
Our Skilled Employment Lawyers Help San Clemente Residents With:
Featured Employment Case
Former employee sued former employer and former co-workers for disability discrimination, retaliation, and civil rights violations. Following entry of jury verdict in favor of former employee, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Christina A. Snyder, J., entered judgment as matter of law in favor of former employer and former co-workers. Former employee appealed. The Court of Appeals, Betty B. Fletcher, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) issue whether employer terminated employee in retaliation for her complaint about co-worker was for jury; (2) individual supervisor could be held personally liable under anti-retaliation provision of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (3) whether co-worker’s violence and threats of violence were motivated by animus towards employee within meaning of California civil rights statute was for jury; (4) evidence that employer perceived employee as being disabled within meaning of FEHA was insufficient for submission to jury; and (5) substantial evidence supported jury’s determination that employer, supervisor, and co-worker acted with oppression, fraud, or malice, as required for award of punitive damages. The opinion states in part: “Under the burden-shifting scheme of Title VII and the FEHA, after the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory explanation for the adverse employment action. Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir.1997); Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir.2000); Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317, 354, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089, 1113 (2000). If the employer rebuts the inference of retaliation, the burden of production shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s explanation is merely a pretext for impermissible retaliation. Id. Pretext may be shown either (1) directly by persuading the jury that a discriminatory motive more likely than not motivated the employer or (2) indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. Godwin v. Hunt Wesson Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir.1998). To establish pretext, “very little” direct evidence of discriminatory motive is sufficient, but if circumstantial evidence is offered, such evidence has to be “specific” and “substantial.” Id. at 1222; Little v. Windermere Relocation, Inc., 265 F.3d 903, 915 (9th Cir.2001). An unwarranted reduction in performance review scores can constitute evidence of pretext in retaliation cases. See Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1377 (9th Cir.1987); cf. Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1465 (9th Cir.1994) (low marks satisfy prima facie case, but in this case were insufficient to prove pretext).”
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results