San Juan Capistrano Employment Attorneys

The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the rights of the residents of San Juan Capistrano, regardless of whether they are employees or employers.  If your cause is just and involves employment law, give us a call to see how we can help.

San Juan Capistrano, California

San Juan Capistrano is city located in Orange County.  San Juan Capistrano covers only fourteen square miles but is home to roughly 35,000 residents.  San Juan Capistrano lies within zip code 92675. Mission San Juan Capistrano, historic landmark and museum, is the Birthplace of Orange County. It was founded more than two hundred years ago as the 7th of 21 missions statewide and features a chapel still standing where Saint Serra once celebrated Mass.  The mission was named after Saint John of Capistrano, a 14th-15th century Franciscan saint. San Juan Capistrano is perhaps best known for the Mission San Juan Capistrano. The mission played a vital role in the colonization of California and is known for its distinctive architecture, including the iconic “Great Stone Church.”  The Mexican Congress of the Union enacted the secularization of the Californian missions in 1833.  Following the American Conquest of California, San Juan remained a relatively small and rural community until the end of the 19th century. California became a state in 1850. California’s Catholic bishop, Joseph Alemany, petitioned the U.S. government to have mission buildings and lands returned to the Catholic Church. In 1865, President Abraham Lincoln returned the Mission to the Catholic Church. The restoration of the mission resulted in the town’s emergence as a tourist destination, owing to its historic architectural style and proximity to the sea. San Juan Capistrano is surrounded by natural beauty, including the nearby San Juan Creek and the picturesque San Juan Capistrano hills. The Los Rios Historic District, located near the mission, features historic adobe structures and beautiful gardens. In addition to the mission, San Juan Capistrano has numerous historic landmarks and buildings, including the Serra Chapel, which is considered one of the oldest chapels still in use in California. The city offers cultural attractions like the San Juan Capistrano Regional Library and the Casa Romantica Cultural Center and Gardens, which hosts events and exhibitions.

Are There Employment Lawyers in San Juan Capistrano?

San Juan Capistrano is a great place to live, and there are many lawyers to choose from if you need legal help. When you search for “employment lawyer San Juan Capistrano” or “wrongful termination attorney San Juan Capistrano” online, you’ll likely see ads from lawyers all over the place.

But finding the right lawyer can be tough when you’re just looking at ads. It’s hard to know if a lawyer has the skills and experience you need for employment-related issues. That’s where the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. comes in. Our lawyers each have almost two decades of experience each, and we’ve successfully handled cases for both employees and employers.

We believe in quality over quantity. Some law firms take on a lot of cases, but we prefer to focus on doing a great job for our clients. That’s why we limit the number of cases we take on. We’re proud of the excellent service we provide, and our clients have had great results.

Even though we’re not located in San Juan Capistrano, our offices are just a short drive away. We’re ready to offer top-notch legal help to San Juan Capistrano residents.

We Can Help San Juan Capistrano Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

Price v. Victor Valley Union High Sch. Dist., 85 Cal. App. 5th 231 (2022), reh’g denied (Nov. 29, 2022)
An applicant for full-time position as instructional assistant for special needs students sued school district for retaliation and various disability-related claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) after it rescinded her contingent offer when she failed physical examination for not being medically suitable for the position, terminated her as part-time substitute special education aide, and disqualified her from any future employment with the district. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of district. Applicant appealed. The Court of Appeal held that: (1) the applicant made prima facie showing that district regarded her as having or potentially having physical disability; (2) the applicant made prima facie showing that she could perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodations; (3) the applicant made prima facie showing that her actual or perceived disability was substantial motivating reason for adverse employment action; (4) fact issues as to pretext precluded summary judgment on disability discrimination claim; (5) district was not liable for failing to engage in interactive process regarding reasonable accommodations; and (6) district was not liable for retaliation. The Court’s opinion states in part as follows: “A triable issue of fact also exists as to whether Price could perform the essential functions of the position she was offered without reasonable accommodation. Relying on Quinn v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 472, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 914 (Quinn), **185 Hastings v. Department of Corrections (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 963, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 329 (Hastings), and Anthony v. Trax International Corporation (9th Cir. 2020) 955 F.3d 1123, the District asserts the fact that Price failed her physical examination means that she was not qualified to perform the job. We disagree. Anthony v. Trax International Corporation, supra, 955 F.3d 1123, did not involve an employee who failed a physical examination. The employer in that case discovered during litigation, long after any alleged discrimination, that the employee lacked a required degree for his position, so he was indisputably unqualified. (Id. at p. 1128.) The issue on appeal was therefore whether such after-acquired evidence that an employee does not satisfy the prerequisites for the position, including educational background, renders the employee ineligible for relief. (Ibid.) In Hastings, it was “undisputed that [the plaintiff] was unable” to do the job with or without accommodations. (Hastings, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 971, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 329.) In fact, his own physician found he was physically incapable of performing the required duties. (Id. at p. 971, fn. 11, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 329.) In Quinn, “there was no conflict in the evidence” the plaintiff-police officer was not qualified for the position because he failed a “sound localization test” due to a hearing impairment. (Quinn, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 482, 476, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 914.) “The ability to localize sound is particularly significant to police officers in split second, life-threatening situations when an officer cannot clearly see.” (Id. at p. 476, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 914.) The physician who administered the test therefore concluded that the plaintiff’s inability to localize “sounds in a split second or in a life threatening situation … represented an imminent and serious hazard” to himself, other officers, and the public. (Ibid.) Despite failing the test, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) accidentally hired the plaintiff due to a clerical error, but his hearing impairment interfered with his ability to hear the police radio and his partner’s instructions so significantly that he was reassigned to a desk job before being terminated. (Id. at pp. 476-477, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 914.) The Quinn court held that the plaintiff’s termination was lawful because he “was never initially qualified for the position” as a matter of law. (Id. at p. 483, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 914.) The District reads Quinn to stand for the broad proposition that an employer may always impose physical requirements as a condition of employment and thus may always refuse to hire someone who does not meet those requirements. We disagree. Although the Quinn court noted that the LAPD had the discretion “to set physical criteria for the hiring process” and that the plaintiff “failed to meet one of those basic criteria,” the court did not hold that employers have unfettered discretion to deny employment to anyone who fails any physical test, as the District suggests. (Quinn, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 482, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 914.) Rather, the Quinn court recognized only the “fundamental principle” that employers may deny a position to an applicant who cannot safely perform the essential functions of the job due to a medical condition. (Id. at p. 482, fn. 5, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 914.) There was no genuine dispute that the Quinn plaintiff could not do so. (Id. at p. 482, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 914.) Indeed, he did not “challenge … LAPD’s requirement that an applicant pass the sound localization test” and “did not contend that [LAPD] lacked authority to set such basic criteria.” (Id. at p. 484, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 914.) In short, it was undisputed that the plaintiffs in Hastings and Quinn could not perform the essential functions of their **186 positions because of a physical disability. That is not the case here.

 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: Failure to Accommodate
$100 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Bicycle Collision
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Pedestrian Collision