San Gabriel Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to fight for the rights of workers in San Gabriel 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 Gabriel 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 Gabriel, California

San Gabriel is located in Los Angeles County.  It is home to more than 40,000 residents.  San Gabriel covers approximately four square miles and encompasses the following zip codes: 91775, 91776, and 91778. The city of San Gabriel, located about 10 miles northeast of Los Angeles, is known as the “Birthplace of the Los Angeles Region” and boasts a powerful and far-reaching history in California. In 1771, Franciscan Fathers under the leadership of Father Junipero Serra founded the Mission San Gabriel Archangel, forming the foundation for the diverse  and rich communities that now make up the Los Angeles region. The Mission San Gabriel was the fourth of the 21 California Missions and was known as the “Pride of the California Missions.” The Native American population living in the area, the Gabrieleno-Tongva Indians, helped to build the Mission and remained a key part of the story of the region.

The Mission was known for its thriving agriculture industry, which continued even after the Mission was disbanded. It was also known for revolutionary water systems, and a restored portion of the elaborate water delivery system, the Chapman Millrace, sits in Plaza Park just outside the Mission grounds. The Mission was the starting place for the epic walk of “Los Pobladores” who walked nine miles to found the pueblo that is now the city of Los Angeles. San Gabriel was one of the first townships in the County of Los Angeles, and the city was incorporated on April 24, 1913 with a population of 1,500 people

The Mission was the heart and soul of the city’s history, culture and art, and the Mission District still serves that purpose in the city today. The district contains City Hall, the San Gabriel Mission Playhouse and several other historic buildings and sites that exhibit Spanish, Native American and early American history.

The site of the present City Hall was donated to the city in 1922 by Walter P. Temple, whose family was involved in much of the history and development of the region, including founding Temple City. The City Hall building was completed in 1923, and was built in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. In the early days, the building’s twin second floor balconies were used to view events like the annual Mission Fiesta parade each September. In addition to the city offices and council chambers still located there today, the building originally housed the Police Department, the San Gabriel Justice Court and the Chamber of Commerce.

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles which is minutes away from San Gabriel.  Thus, our lawyers stand ready to serve employees and employers in San Gabriel with all their employment law needs.

The Best San Gabriel Employment Attorneys Are Closer Than You Might Think

The city of San Gabriel, nestled in the heart of Southern California, offers its residents a diverse array of choices when it comes to legal representation. This vibrant community is home to numerous law firms and attorneys eager to provide their services to those in need. However, for individuals confronting complex employment-related legal challenges, the process of identifying the right labor lawyer can be a challenging endeavor.

In today’s digital age, the internet serves as a primary resource for those embarking on a quest to secure legal counsel. Online searches such as “San Gabriel employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in San Gabriel” have become commonplace starting points in the journey to find a suitable advocate. Yet, this initial search can yield a deluge of results, primarily consisting of paid advertisements from legal professionals, making it arduous to discern which attorney possesses the requisite skills and experience tailored to one’s unique case.

Adding to the complexity is the fact that not all employment attorneys share the same ethos or approach to their practice. Some may prioritize swift and amicable settlements, opting for quick resolutions that minimize conflict and legal entanglement. In contrast, others may advocate for a more protracted legal battle, viewing it as necessary to secure a comprehensive and full-value resolution on behalf of their clients.

Amidst this intricate landscape, the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., stands apart with a distinctive and client-focused philosophy. Our team of seasoned San Gabriel labor lawyers is unwavering in our commitment to securing the best possible outcome for every client, regardless of the size or complexity of the battle ahead. Our unwavering dedication to delivering exceptional quality consistently takes precedence over quantity.

Central to our approach is our deliberate choice to limit our caseload. By doing so, we ensure that each client benefits from the undivided attention, meticulous detail, and personalized service we bring to their case. At our firm, clients are not mere case files; they are esteemed members of our professional family, deserving of a level of personal service that sets industry benchmarks.

Our commitment to excellence is not confined to the realm of legal representation; it extends to the enduring and meaningful relationships we forge with our clients. These connections often persist far beyond the resolution of their respective cases, serving as a testament to our role as staunch advocates and unwavering allies for our clients’ rights and interests.

Our record of achievement stands as irrefutable proof of our tireless dedication to fighting for our clients. If you find yourself in search of employment lawyers in San Gabriel, we warmly invite you to reach out to us today. The Akopyan Law Firm is poised to provide world-class legal services and top-tier representation to the residents of San Gabriel, California, with our conveniently located offices in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino just a stone’s throw away.

Our Firm’s Practice Is Focused On Employment Law Including:

Featured Employment Case

Carter v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 122 Cal. App. 4th 1313, 19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519 (2004)

A female employee filed age and sex discrimination and breach of contract action against employer, alleging company-wide administrative reorganization had caused disparate impact on women employees and those over age of 40. After jury returned verdict for employee, the Superior Court denied employer’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), but conditionally granted new trial on entire contract cause of action and on amount of damages caused by discrimination. The employer appealed and employee cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal, Ikola, J., held that: (1) the1 employee failed to establish prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination; (2) there was insufficient evidence of oral contract not to demote employee without good cause; and (3) there was insufficient evidence of implied-in-fact contract.  In pertinent part the Court’s opinion stated as follows: “This case does not fit well within the normal boundary of a disparate impact case. Plaintiff asserts that defendant’s reorganization caused a disparate impact on women and those over 40 because the reorganization plan demoted administrative managers, all but one of whom were women, and about half of whom were over 40. Reflecting a basic misunderstanding of the *1322 meaning of disparate impact, plaintiff lays great stock in her assertion that “no other group of employees was adversely affected ” by the reorganization. But plaintiff proves too much. We take her assertion to mean that no woman or person over the age of 40 was adversely affected unless she was an administrative manager. Women were not affected as a group. Persons over 40 were not affected as a group. Rather, administrative managers were affected as a group. The evidence reveals nothing more. And the law does not prohibit discrimination against administrative managers. Plaintiff’s entire case proceeded on the erroneous premise that administrative managers were a “protected group” because administrative managers were almost all women and about half were over the age of 40. For example, plaintiff’s written opposition to defendant’s motion for nonsuit argued: “Plaintiff was a member of a protected group, namely, Administrative Managers, who were predominantly women or persons over the age of 40.” On appeal, plaintiff continues this not-so-subtle swap of “protected groups.” Plaintiff asserts she “presented substantial evidence of the disparate impact on Administrative Managers.” And, indeed, she recites much evidence showing an adverse impact on administrative managers. We are reminded of a false syllogism. Gnatcatchers (a protected class) are brown (consists of women). The horses in the coral (the administrative managers) are brown (women). Therefore, the horses in the coral (the administrative managers) are gnatcatchers (a protected class). This lapse in logic—characterizing a category of employees as “protected” simply because employees in that category are part of a larger protected class—is the type of error Justice O’Connor warned against in Watson, discussed more fully, post. If a plaintiff can proceed with a disparate impact case on this basis, employers will necessarily hire by quotas in all job categories as the only means by which to avoid repeatedly justifying in a court of law the business necessity of every decision adversely affecting a segment of its workforce. The theory of disparate impact discrimination had its origin in Griggs v. Duke **526 Power Company, supra, 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158, a case decided under Title VII. In Griggs, the court concluded a facially neutral employment policy, such as a general aptitude test or a high school diploma requirement, could constitute actionable discrimination, even in the absence of discriminatory intent, where the application of the policy had a discriminatory impact, and the employment policy was not demonstrably related to the job for which it was used. Until 1988, when Watson was decided, the high court had applied *1323 the disparate impact theory in Title VII cases where the employment practice or policy involved standardized employment tests or criteria.

 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