Santa Clarita Employment Lawyer

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

Santa Clarita, California

Santa Clarita is a large city in northwest Los Angeles County.  With a population of almost 230,000 it is the third-largest city by population in Los Angeles County, the 17th-largest in California, and the 98th-largest city in the United States. Santa Clarita has a rich history, including stories of outlaws, cowboys and Indians, gold rushes, oil booms and busts, a flooding disaster of epic proportions, and participation in the glamorous early days of film. Santa Clarita got its name from the Portola expedition. The Spaniards arrived on horseback in August 1769 and named the wild river they saw for St. Clare (Santa Clara). The river was later called the “little” Santa Clara, and the valley accordingly took the name of Santa Clarita. Henry Mayo Newhall was born in Saugus, Massachusetts in 1825. An accomplished auctioneer and businessman (real estate and railroads), Newhall purchased the Rancho San Francisco and granted a right-of-way to the Southern Pacific Company. The first tracks connecting the San Francisco area with Los Angeles were laid across his ranch. He named the station Saugus, after his birthplace and the railroad named the town site he had granted, Newhall. History tells us gold was discovered at Sutter’s Mill, but in actuality Jose Francisco de Gracia Lopez was responsible for the state’s first gold discovery, which happened in Santa Clarita on March 9, 1842 – six years before James Marshall’s discovery. Legend has it Lopez’ gold was clinging to the roots of wild onions, which were found beneath the “Oak of the Golden Dream,” which still resides in Placerita Canyon. In 1887 Saugus Cafe on Railroad Avenue opened its doors. Today the restaurant is the oldest still-operating restaurant in Los Angeles County. The City of Santa Clarita incorporated December 15, 1987–the largest City ever to incorporate in the history of California. Santa Clarita is located about 30 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles.  Santa Clarita covers more than 70 square miles and is located in the Santa Clarita Valley.  It encompasses the following zip codes: 91321, 91350, 91351, 91354, 91355, 91387, and 91390. Santa Clarita is home to three institutions of higher education: California Institute of the Arts, an internationally renowned art university; The Master’s University, a Christian liberal arts university; and College of the Canyons, a community college. Companies headquartered in or near the city include Princess Cruises, Sunkist, Remo, and the Newhall Land and Farming Company. The unincorporated communities of Castaic and Stevenson Ranch, located to the north and west of the Santa Clarita city limits, respectively, are closely associated with the city. Six Flags Magic Mountain, though commonly thought to be in the Valencia part of Santa Clarita, is also west of Interstate 5 and outside of the Santa Clarita city limits. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles which is minutes away from Santa Clarita.  Thus, our firm stands ready to deliver excellent results to both employees and employers in the Santa Clarita area.

Suggestions Regarding The Most Suitable Manner of Finding The Best Employment Lawyers in Santa Clarita

In Santa Clarita, residents are spoilt for choice when it comes to legal representation. The city boasts a plethora of lawyers and law firms, all vying for the attention of its residents. Some of them are so eager to secure your business that they might as well break down your door and deliver their sales pitch right in your living room. Amidst this sea of legal options, individuals, be they employers or employees, who find themselves embroiled in serious legal matters, particularly those involving employment law, face the daunting task of selecting the attorney who is truly the right fit for their unique needs.

The quest for the ideal lawyer is made even more challenging by the incessant deluge of gimmicky radio advertisements and the sight of cheesy posters adorning billboards, buses, and street benches. In today’s digital age, most people turn to online searches in their quest for legal help, typing phrases like “Santa Clarita employment lawyer” or “Santa Clarita labor attorney” into search engines. Yet, these searches often yield results inundated with paid advertisements, primarily from what some may refer to as “billboard lawyers.”

It’s important to acknowledge that billboard lawyers can indeed be a viable choice for specific cases. However, certain situations necessitate legal representation of the utmost quality, delivered by seasoned and experienced counsel. This is precisely where the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., stands out.

Every attorney at our firm boasts nearly two decades of experience in the realm of employment law. We are unswervingly committed to achieving favorable outcomes for both employers and employees. Our approach places a premium on quality over quantity, and our attorneys prefer to dedicate their time to fighting for our clients’ rights in the courtroom, rather than spending it recording catchy radio ads.

We firmly believe that actions speak louder than words. Consequently, we encourage you not to merely take our word for it. If you require assurance, we’re more than willing to provide client references upon request. Alternatively, you can explore our online reviews, which provide authentic insights into the experiences of those who have entrusted us with their legal needs.

With offices in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino located just minutes away from Santa Clarita, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is ever-prepared to offer top-tier legal representation to the residents of this thriving city. When it comes to securing the legal support you need, rest assured that we’re here to stand by your side.

We Can Help Santa Clarita Residents With Cases Involving

Featured Employment Case

Donald Schriver, Inc. v. Fair Emp. & Hous. Com., 220 Cal. App. 3d 396, 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 440 (Ct. App. 1986)

Lodge owner filed petition for writ of mandate to compel Fair Employment and Housing Commission to set aside determination that lodge owner violated Fair Employment and Housing Act by depriving employee of harassment-free work environment and that employee was entitled to back pay and compensatory damages. The Superior Court granted the petition only in the respect that it determined the Commission was not empowered to award punitive damages. The lodge owner appealed and the Commission cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal, held that: (1) substantial evidence supported Commission’s finding that lodge owner violated the Act; (2) substantial evidence supported Commission’s finding that lodge owner failed to meet burden of proving that employee did not mitigate her damages so as to require limitation of back pay award to date of employee’s termination from her subsequent employment following her firing from lodge; and (3) Commission lacked authority to award compensatory and punitive damages. The Court concluded its opinion as follows: “Professor C. MacKinnon in her book on sexual harassment and discrimination draws **448 a distinction between that harassment which creates an offensive environment (“condition of work”) and harassment in which a supervisor demands sexual consideration in exchange for job benefits (“quid pro quo”).  Here, the complained of conduct, which was offensive, intimidating, threatening and oppressive, was a combination of both forms of harassment. An employer may not, through sexually oriented remarks, *411 create an offensive work-place and, likewise, may not require sexual consideration from an employee as a quid pro quo for job benefits or continued employment. The Act is intended to eliminate such predatory exploitation of a worker who is relatively defenseless, but whose spirit likely longs for the tranquility of human respect. We believe in a policy of protection for such persons under a deep seated conviction that the evil the Act is intended to remedy in fact exists and that its provisions are well adapted to curtail and check its presence.”