South El Monte Employment Attorneys

The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the rights of the residents of South El Monte, 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.

South El Monte, California

South El Monte is a city in the County of Los Angeles. “The City of Achievement” is a vibrant and thriving community, located in the heart of the San Gabriel Valley, just minutes from downtown Los Angeles.  South El Monte covers approximately three square miles and encompasses the following zip code: 91733. South El Monte was incorporated into a city in 1958 with a population of 3,900, and is now home to more than 20,000 residents with a daytime population of over 44,000, as workers from various business industries stream into the city limits, every morning. The land uses are 54% industrial, 26% residential, 6% retail, 3% office/commercial, and 6% other amenities. South El Monte is a tight knit community, which offers a diverse age of residents with the same dedication and spirit that the City was founded upon.  In just six decades, the South El Monte has matured into a viable commercial and industrial base, with over 2,400 businesses due the City having a diverse land use pattern and excellent freeway accessibility to the 10, 60, and 605 freeways which provide ready access to points throughout Southern California. These factors contribute to the desirability of South El Monte as a good location for development. South El Monte’s economy has historically included light manufacturing, industrial businesses, and commercial enterprises. It’s strategically located for businesses due to its access to major transportation routes. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles which is minutes away from South El Monte. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide legal services to both employees and employers in South El Monte.

Where Are The Best Employment Lawyer in South El Monte?

In the vibrant community of South El Monte, residents have a multitude of legal choices at their fingertips. Lawyers and law firms are abundant, with services tailored to various needs. However, the challenge lies in discerning the ideal attorney amidst the digital cacophony. A simple online search for “South El Monte employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in South El Monte” reveals a barrage of paid advertisements. These ads, while eye-catching, can leave individuals grappling with a common dilemma – how to identify the attorney with the right blend of skills and experience. It’s not easy to gauge an attorney’s true proficiency in employment law solely based on an online ad. Residents of South El Monte deserve more than flashy marketing. They deserve legal representation that reflects the values of their community. Enter the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. Each of our attorneys boasts nearly two decades of experience, distinguishing us in this crowded legal landscape. We’ve established a strong track record of success, representing both employees and employers with unwavering dedication. Our approach hinges on quality, a commitment to providing unparalleled legal services rather than pursuing quantity. While others may cast a wide net, we choose to focus on depth and precision in our practice. Located just minutes away from South El Monte, our firm is deeply rooted in the community’s fabric. We understand the local dynamics, enabling us to offer legal solutions that resonate with the unique needs of South El Monte residents. So, when you find yourself in need of legal counsel in South El Monte, look no further than the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. We’re here to provide legal representation that transcends mere advertisements, aligning seamlessly with the values and aspirations of this thriving community. Contact us today to experience the difference.

Our Law Firm Can Help South El Monte Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

Nakai v. Friendship House Assn. of Am. Indians, Inc., 15 Cal. App. 5th 32, 222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 662 (2017)

A former employee, who was terminated by his mother-in-law CEO after his wife informed the CEO that he had a gun and was angry at co-workers, and that she had obtained a restraining order against him, brought a wrongful termination action against his former employer, claiming marital status discrimination and failure to conduct a reasonable investigation prior to his firing. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the employer, and the employee appealed. The Court of Appeal held that: 1 allegation that former employee was terminated solely because of his status as the spouse of complaining employee and the son-in-law of the CEO did not establish prima facie case of marital status discrimination; 2 former employer had legitimate nondiscriminatory and nonpretextual reason to terminate former employee; and 3 former employer did not have any duty to investigate before discharging at-will former employee. In part the opinion states as follows:  Orlando claims Helen terminated his employment “solely because of his status as the spouse of the complaining employee and [her] son-in-law.” Thus, the motivation for his discharge, Orlando contends, was marital status discrimination, which is prohibited by FEHA. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a) [“It is an unlawful employment practice … [¶] [f]or an employer, because of … marital status … to bar or to discharge the person from employment.”].) Illustrative examples of marital discrimination include refusing “to hire unwed mothers because they were unwed, a refusal to hire single people because they were single, or the granting of maternity leave to married teachers only.” (Chen v. County of Orange (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 926, 940 [116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 786] (Chen).)  While laws prohibiting marital status discrimination are “ ‘to prevent discrimination against classes of people,’ ” they do not extend to “ ‘ “the status of being married to a particular person.” ’ ” (Chen, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 944, quoting Bammert v. Labor and Industry Review Com. (1999) 232 Wis.2d 365 [606 N.W.2d 620, 625].) The latter context has been described as a “[c]onduit case,” occurring when a “plaintiff is the object of adverse action because of something about his or her spouse.” (Chen, at p. 943.) “Conduit cases may be divided into two categories: those in which the animus directed against the plaintiff’s spouse is itself unlawful, and those in which the animus is not unlawful.” (Ibid.) “[S]imple politics is the typical example” of a conduit case not based on wrongful animus—for example, where a store employee was fired because her husband was a police officer who had participated in the arrest of the store owner’s wife. (Id. at pp. 943–944, quoting Bammert, 606 N.W.2d at p. 621.) Such cases “have been universally met with rejection as valid marital status discrimination claims.” (Chen, at p. 943.) Orlando’s allegations are those of a “conduit case,” as his claim is predicated not on alleged animus towards the married state, itself, but on supposed particulars about his spouse. For example, Orlando asserts he was “treated in a disparate fashion from other employees of Respondent solely because of his status as the spouse of the complaining employee and son-in-law of Respondent’s CEO.” In other words, he claims he was treated differently not because he was married, but because he happened to be married to the CEO’s daughter—a political problem, not a marital discrimination problem. He similarly asserts that in terminating his employment, **669 the CEO “was attempting to influence and effect a Custody dispute involving her granddaughter.” This is simply an assertion the CEO sided with her daughter on a child custody issue—a family dynamics problem, not a marital discrimination problem. Indeed, as the trial court observed, Orlando was married to the CEO’s daughter for 14 years. Thus, “[i]f marital status were an issue, [Orlando] would have been terminated earlier. It was the identity of Ms. Nakai—not the marital status—that led to the discharge.” In short, while Orlando may have alleged that he was unfairly discharged on the basis of groundless or overblown accusations by his wife, he failed to allege a prima facie case of marital status discrimination.

 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