San Fernando Employment Attorneys

The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in San Fernando, California.

San Fernando, California

San Fernando is a general-law city in the San Fernando Valley region of Los Angeles County, California, in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. It is bordered on all sides by the City of Los Angeles.  It covers a little over two square miles and is home to roughly 25,000 residents. The territory covers the following zip codes: 91340, and 91341. In 1769, the Spanish Portolà expedition – the first Europeans to see inland areas of California – traveled north through the San Fernando Valley. On August 7 they camped at a watering place near where place where the Mission San Fernando Rey de España  would later be established.  The mission was founded in 1797. Mission San Fernando Rey de España was the 17th of 21 Franciscan missions established in Alta California. After Mexico gained independence from Spain on 27 September 1821, the Province of Alta California became the Mexican Territory of Alta California. The missions continued under the rule of Mexico.  In 1833, the mission was secularized by the Mexican government.  In 1846, the area became part of the Mexican land grant of Rancho Ex-Mission San Fernando. While most of the towns in the surrounding San Fernando Valley agreed to annexation by Los Angeles in the 1910s, eager to tap the bountiful water supply provided by the newly opened Los Angeles Aqueduct, San Fernando’s abundant groundwater supplies allowed it to remain a separate city. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles which is minutes away from San Fernando.  Thus, the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. offers legal services to both employees and employers in San Fernando.

The Best Employment Lawyers in San Fernando

San Fernando, nestled in the heart of Southern California, is indeed a thriving community. However, it’s worth noting that this picturesque city, often described as a bedroom community, may not host a plethora of lawyers or law firms within its immediate boundaries. For residents and businesses in San Fernando facing legal matters, this geographical reality can present a unique challenge when seeking legal counsel.

In today’s digital age, the internet has become an indispensable tool for those in search of legal representation. A common starting point in this quest is to conduct an online search, using terms such as “San Fernando employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in San Fernando.” Yet, while the internet can be a valuable resource, it often produces results that extend beyond the city limits.

A typical online search for legal representation may yield paid advertisements from employment lawyers based in nearby areas, such as downtown Los Angeles or Century City. This can make the task of identifying the right attorney, one with the requisite skill and experience tailored to the specific legal issue at hand, quite challenging.

Within this landscape, the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., emerges as a beacon of legal excellence. Our distinguished team of attorneys boasts nearly two decades of experience, a testament to our unwavering commitment to serving the legal needs of both employers and employees. Our track record of success is well-established, exemplifying our dedication to achieving favorable outcomes for our clients.

At the Akopyan Law Firm, quality eclipses quantity in our approach to legal practice. We prioritize delivering exceptional legal services and representation tailored to the unique circumstances of each case. Unlike some law firms that prioritize volume, our commitment to performing quality work on every case compels us to limit our caseload. This deliberate choice ensures that every client benefits from our undivided attention, meticulous detail, and personalized service.

Our philosophy is rooted in treating each client as an esteemed member of our professional family. We are immensely proud of the first-class personal service we provide, as confirmed by the glowing testimonials from our satisfied clients. These relationships often transcend the life of the case, a testament to our role as dedicated advocates and steadfast allies for our clients.

While San Fernando may not house an abundance of legal practitioners, the Akopyan Law Firm stands ready to provide residents with world-class legal services and top-tier representation. Our offices in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino located just minutes away, position us as a local resource for the legal needs of San Fernando residents and businesses alike.

We Offer Free Case Evaluations, And Can Help With:

Featured Employment Case

Hall v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 148 Cal. App. 4th 318, 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 732 (2007)

A female employee of county’s auxiliary legal services corporation brought class action, alleging gender-based wage discrimination under federal and state Equal Pay Acts (EPA) and California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), against corporation, county counsel, and county. The Superior Court granted defendants summary judgment.  On appeal the court held as follows: (1) proper comparator class was male corporation employees, not male county counsel employees; (2) wage disparity between predominately male county counsel and predominately female corporation did not violate federal and state Equal Pay Acts (EPA); and (3) employee did not show disparate treatment or impact under FEHA.  The opinion provides in part: “The Equal Pay Act exists to ensure that employees performing equal work are paid equal wages without regard to gender. To prove a violation of that basic principle, a plaintiff must establish that, based on gender, the employer pays different wages to employees doing substantially similar work under substantially similar conditions.4 If that prima facie showing is made, the burden *324 shifts to the employer to prove the disparity is permitted by one of the EPA’s statutory exceptions—here, that the disparity is based on a factor other than sex. (29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1); Lab.Code, § 1197.5, subd. (a); Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974) 417 U.S. 188, 195, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 41 L.Ed.2d 1; E.E.O.C. v. Maricopa Cty. Community College Dist. (9th Cir.1984) 736 F.2d 510, 513.) If an exception is established, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove pretext. (Maxwell v. City of Tucson (9th Cir.1986) 803 F.2d 444, 446.)…To establish her prima facie case, Hall had to show not only that she is paid lower wages than a male comparator for equal work, but that she has selected the proper comparator. “The EPA does not require perfect diversity between the comparison classes, but at a certain point, when the challenged policy effects [sic ] both male and female employees equally, there can be no EPA violation. [Citation.] [A plaintiff] cannot make a comparison of one *325 classification composed of males and females with another classification of employees also composed of males and females.” (Arthur v. College of St. Benedict (D.Minn.2001) 174 F.Supp.2d 968, 976; Hofmister v. Mississippi State Dept. of Health (S.D.Miss.1999) 53 F.Supp.2d 884, 891 [the “legislative history of the EPA shows that differences in pay between groups or categories of employees that contain both men and women within each group or category are not covered by the EPA”].)…Assuming (as Hall insists) that County Counsel is Hall’s common law employer, the two-tier wage and benefits system is not discriminatory because there was a legitimate and non-discriminatory cost-savings purpose for ALS’ existence. (Prieto v. City of Miami Beach (S.D.Fla.2002) 190 F.Supp.2d 1340, 1351–1354; Arthur v. College of St. Benedict, supra, 174 F.Supp.2d at pp. 980–981; Aldrich v. Randolph Cent. School Dist. (2d Cir.1992) 963 F.2d 520.) Accordingly, summary judgment was proper on this ground.

 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