Santa Monica Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in Santa Monica, California.
Santa Monica, California
Santa Monica is an iconic beachside city in greater Los Angeles. Santa Monica is home to more than 85,000 residents. It covers approximately nine square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 90401, 90402, 90403, 90404, 90405, 90406, 90407, 90408, 90409, 90410, 90411. Offering an environment of unparalleled natural beauty, the city is home to a mix of residential communities, commercial districts, and recreational venues. Recently named by National Geographic as one of the Top “10 Beach Cities in the World” and by TIME as one of the “Best Places to Live”, Santa Monica features three miles of Pacific beaches and the Santa Monica Pier. Santa Monica’s residential population is approximately 93,000, increasing to an estimated 250,000 during the day with tourists, shoppers, and employees. Tourism attracts over 8 million visitors annually. The City of Santa Monica was incorporated on November 30, 1886 and subsequently adopted a City Charter in 1945. In 1947, a City Council-City Manager form of government was established. The highly-rated Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District serves both Santa Monica and Malibu residents. Santa Monica College (SMC), one of the state’s top two-year community colleges, serves over 30,000 full-time and part-time students on several campuses and offers more than 90 fields of study. Santa Monica’s strong education institutions are complemented by the 5-star rated Santa Monica Public Library system. Santa Monica has a strong and diverse economy. Known as “Silicon Beach,” local businesses are at the leading edge of the nation’s creative economy and startup scene. The term “Silicon Beach” refers to the cluster of tech companies and startups that have established themselves in the Santa Monica and West Los Angeles areas of California. This nickname is a play on the more famous “Silicon Valley,” which is located in the San Francisco Bay Area and is renowned for its concentration of technology companies.Over the years, Santa Monica has seen a significant growth in the technology sector, with numerous tech startups and companies choosing to establish offices or headquarters in the region. The appeal of the beachside location is a significant draw for tech talent, and it has contributed to the growth of the tech community in the area. Santa Monica is also home to three renowned and respected health facilities, Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Kaiser Permanente. With offices in Burbank, Orange, and Riverside the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Santa Monica. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Santa Monica.
The Best Employment Lawyers in Santa Monica And Where To Find Them
In Santa Monica, residents have a wealth of options when it comes to legal representation. The city is home to numerous lawyers and law firms, each vying for the attention of its residents. Some 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 abundance of legal choices, individuals, whether 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 Monica employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Santa Monica” 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 located just minutes away from Santa Monica, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is ever-prepared to offer top-tier legal representation to the residents of this vibrant coastal city. When it comes to securing the legal support you need, rest assured that we’re here to stand by your side.
We Are Prepared To Help Santa Monica Residents With:
Featured Employment Case Out of Santa Monica
Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, 234 Cal. App. 4th 359, 184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 9 (2015)
A city employee sued the city under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in the interactive process, and retaliation. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for city. The employee appealed. The Court of Appeal held that: (1) the city employee failed to establish the continuing violation exception from the one-year FEHA statute of limitations; (2) the employee was unable to perform the essential functions of his position with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) the city was not required to reassign employee to a new position or to wait for a vacant position to arise; and (4) the employee’s acts of seeking city’s assistance to return to work and initiating interactive process did not amount to “protected activity” under FEHA’s retaliation provision. As to this last point, the Court explained as follows: To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under FEHA, “a plaintiff must show ‘(1) he or she engaged in a “protected activity,” (2) the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employer’s action.’ ” (Scotch, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1020, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 338.) The City contends Nealy cannot show he engaged in protected activity. We agree. FEHA makes it unlawful for the employer to discharge or discriminate against an employee because he or she has “opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.” (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h).) Thus, protected activity takes the form of opposing any practices forbidden by FEHA or participating in any proceeding conducted by the DFEH or the Fair Employment and Housing Council (FEHC). (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, §§ 11002, subds. (a), (b), 11021, subd. (a).) Opposing practices forbidden by FEHA includes seeking the advice of the DFEH or FEHC; assisting or advising any person in seeking the advice of the DFEH or FEHC; opposing employment practices the employee reasonably believes to exist and believes to be a violation of FEHA; participating in an activity perceived by the employer as opposition to discrimination; or contacting, communicating with, or participating in the proceeding of a local human rights or civil rights agency regarding employment discrimination. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11021, subd. (a)(1).) Participating in any proceeding conducted by the DFEH or FEHC includes contacting, communicating with, or participating in the proceedings of the DFEH or FEHC because of a good faith belief that the employer has violated FEHA; or involvement as a *381 potential witness, which the employer perceives as participation in an activity of DFEH or FEHC. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11021, subd. (a)(2).) But protected activity does not include a mere request for reasonable accommodation. (Rope v. Auto–Chlor System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635, 652, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 392 **26 (Rope ).) Without more, exercising one’s rights under FEHA to request reasonable accommodation or engage in the interactive process does not demonstrate some degree of opposition to or protest of unlawful conduct by the employer. (220 Cal.App.4th at pp. 652–653, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 392.) Here, Nealy does not identify any activity that qualifies as protected activity. He contends his protected activity was seeking the City’s assistance to return to work—that is, seeking reasonable accommodation—and initiating the interactive process. These acts alone do not amount to “oppos[ing] any practices forbidden under” FEHA or participating in DFEH or FEHC proceedings. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h); Rope, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 652, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 392.) If they did, this interpretation of protected activity “ ‘would significantly blur and perhaps obliterate the distinction between an action for failure to accommodate or engage in the interactive process and retaliation.’ ” (Rope, supra, at p. 653, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 392.) Nealy’s exercise of his right to request reasonable accommodation was not protected activity for purposes of a FEHA retaliation claim. The trial court properly granted summary judgment on this cause of action.
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results