Sherman Oaks Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. represents employers and employees in Sherman Oaks, California, in litigation and trials.

Sherman Oaks Labor Lawyers

Sherman Oaks is a neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles.  It is named after General Moses Hazeltine Sherman, who owned all the land now named in his honor. Born in Vermont in 1853, he had a big house at the intersection of Ventura Blvd. and Sepulveda Blvd. in Sherman Oaks.   Sherman Oaks is a quiet suburban neighborhood which combines city convenience with small town peacefulness. It has plenty of high-end malls and hip boutiques and restaurants, which are a big draw for the families who call Sherman Oaks home.  The neighborhood has a reputation for being part of the affluent area of the Valley. Sheman Oaks is covers more than nine square miles, and is called home by almost 70,000 Angelenos . Sherman Oaks coves the following zip codes: 91401, 91403, 91411, 91413, 91423, and 91495. One of the most famous attractions in Sherman Oaks is the Sherman Oaks Galleria, a large shopping mall with a wide range of retail stores, restaurants, and entertainment options. The Galleria has been featured in movies and television shows, contributing to its recognition. While Sherman Oaks itself is not a major hub for the entertainment industry, it is located in close proximity to other entertainment centers in the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles. Many actors, directors, and other entertainment professionals have called Sherman Oaks home. Sherman Oaks offers several parks and recreational facilities, including the Van Nuys Sherman Oaks Park. Residents and visitors can enjoy outdoor activities, sports, and community events in these spaces.  The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in the City of Burbank which is just a few miles away from Sherman Oaks, California.  Our main office in Burbank provides convenience to employees and employers in Sherman Oaks, California who seek top notch representation in all things employment law.

Sherman Oaks Employment Laws

The employment relationship between employers and employees in Sherman Oaks is governed by a several distinct sets of local, state, and federal law.  Local laws governing places of employment in the neighborhood of Sherman Oaks include, but are not limited to the City of Los Angeles Wage Ordinance.  State laws governing the workplace in Sherman Oaks include, the California Constitution, the California Labor Code, the California Government Code, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), and the California Business & Professions Code.  Federal laws governing the workplace in Sherman Oaks include but are not limited to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act, (“ADA”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).

Who Are The Best Wrongful Termination Lawyer in Sherman Oaks?

Navigating the bustling landscape of Sherman Oaks, California, in search of the best employment attorney can be a daunting task. This thriving metropolitan area offers its residents a multitude of options when it comes to legal services. With numerous law firms serving the diverse needs of Sherman Oaks residents, choosing the right labor lawyer can be a challenging endeavor.

In today’s digital age, conducting a Google search for “Sherman Oaks employment lawyer” yields a plethora of results, ranging from paid advertisements to organic listings. While this abundance of choices may seem advantageous, it can also make the process of selecting the right attorney more complex.

The key lies in identifying a skilled and experienced attorney who is well-versed in employment law and capable of effectively handling disputes in this arena. However, distinguishing exceptional lawyers from those who may be less than stellar can be a nuanced task.

While online searches, such as “Sherman Oaks employment lawyer” or “labor lawyer in Sherman Oaks,” can be a starting point, they may not provide all the insights needed to make an informed decision. To gain a better understanding of an attorney’s competence and reputation, one of the most effective methods is to read client reviews and testimonials.

If you find yourself in Sherman Oaks, California, and require the services of an employment lawyer, the Akopyan Law Firm offers a compelling solution. Our team of talented employment attorneys boasts well over a decade of experience in the field of employment law. We have earned a reputation for achieving success in representing both employers and employees in a wide range of employment-related matters.

What truly sets us apart is our dedication to providing personalized, local service. Our offices are strategically located just minutes away from Sherman Oaks, allowing us to offer not only exceptional expertise but also convenient accessibility. When you choose the Akopyan Law Firm, you gain access to seasoned employment attorneys who understand the unique legal landscape and dynamics of Sherman Oaks.

To ensure that your employment-related legal needs are met with professionalism and excellence, we encourage you to contact the Akopyan Law Firm. When you reach out to us, you can expect to speak directly with an experienced employment attorney who can address your specific concerns. We are here to provide you with the guidance and representation you need, serving as your local powerhouse in Sherman Oaks, California.

We Offer Help To Sherman Oaks Residents In Connection With:

Featured Employment Case

Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 675 F.3d 1233, 1235 (9th Cir. 2012)

Monika Samper, a neo-natal intensive care unit (“NICU”) nurse, sought an accommodation from her employer, Providence St. Vincent (“Providence”), that would have allowed her an unspecified number of unplanned absences from her job. She wanted to opt out of Providence’s attendance policy, which sanctioned five unplanned absences of unlimited duration as well as other permitted absences. Samper appealed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Providence on her reasonable accommodation claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Because regular attendance is an essential function of a neo-natal nursing position at Providence, the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  The Court explained its rationale in part as follows: “to establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate under the ADA, Samper must show that “(1) [s]he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [s]he is a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation; and (3) [s]he suffered an adverse employment action because of [her] disability.” Allen v. Pac. Bell, 348 F.3d 1113, 1114 (9th Cir.2003); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), (b)(5)(A) (requiring reasonable accommodation). Providence does not dispute that Samper is disabled, that she has the requisite technical skills for the job, or that she suffered an adverse employment action. Samper runs into an insurmountable hurdle, however, in arguing that regular attendance is not an essential function of the NICU nurse position.  An individual is qualified if “with or without reasonable accommodation, [she] can perform the essential functions of the employment position….” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). “The court first examines whether the individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the position. The court then considers whether the individual can perform the essential functions … with or without a reasonable accommodation.” Bates v. United Parcel Svc., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 990 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although Samper retains the burden of proof in making her prima facie case, Providence has the burden of production in establishing what job functions are essential as “much of the information which determines those essential functions lies uniquely with the employer.” Id. at 991 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). To meet its burden of production, Providence “must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, reasons for its actions which, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a finding” favorable to the defendant—in this case, that compliance with the attendance policy is an essential function of the job. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (emphasis in original, citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It is a “rather common-sense idea … that if one is not able to be at work, one cannot be a qualified individual.” Waggoner v. Olin Corp., 169 F.3d 481, 482 (7th Cir.1999). Both before and since the passage of the ADA, a majority of circuits have endorsed the proposition that in those jobs where performance requires attendance at the job, irregular attendance compromises essential job functions. Attendance may be necessary for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, it is required simply because the employee must work as “part of a team.” Hypes v. First Commerce Corp., 134 F.3d 721, 727 (5th Cir.1998). Other jobs require face-to-face interaction with clients and other employees. Nowak v. St. Rita High Sch., 142 F.3d 999 (7th Cir.1998) (teacher); Nesser v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 442 (8th Cir.1998) (airline customer service agent); Tyndall v. Nat’l Educ. Ctrs., 31 F.3d 209 (4th Cir.1994) (teacher). Yet other jobs require the employee to work with items and equipment that are on site. EEOC v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 253 F.3d 943 (7th Cir.2001) (en banc) (dockworker); Jovanovic v. In–Sink–Erator, 201 F.3d 894 (7th Cir.2000) (tool and die maker); Waggoner, 169 F.3d 481 (production worker); *1238 Corder v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 162 F.3d 924 (7th Cir.1998) (telephone customer support); Halperin v. Abacus Tech. Corp., 128 F.3d 191 (4th Cir.1997) (computer consultant); Rogers v. Int’l Marine Terminals, Inc., 87 F.3d 755 (5th Cir.1996) (mechanic); Jackson v. Veterans Admin., 22 F.3d 277 (11th Cir.1994) (housekeeping aide); Carr v. Reno, 23 F.3d 525 (D.C.Cir.1994) (coding clerk under the Rehabilitation Act); Law v. U.S. Postal Serv., 852 F.2d 1278 (Fed.Cir.1988) (mail handler under the Rehabilitation Act). The common-sense notion that on-site regular attendance is an essential job function could hardly be more illustrative than in the context of a neo-natal nurse. This at-risk patient population cries out for constant vigilance, team coordination and continuity. As a NICU nurse, Samper’s job unites the trinity of requirements that make regular on-site presence necessary for regular performance: teamwork, face-to-face interaction with patients and their families, and working with medical equipment. Samper herself admits that her absences sometimes affected “teamwork and cause[d] a hardship for [her] coworkers who must cover for[her].” Similarly, once at work, Samper’s tasks required her to “lift babies, push cribs and isolettes.” More critically, she had to “get up at a moment’s notice to answer alarms [and] … [o]ften … run to codes.”

 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
$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