Sylmar Employment Lawyers
The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is dedicated to protecting the rights of workers in Sylmar who fall victim to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace. We also stand ready to assist small businesses with all their employment law needs.
Sylmar is one of the larger suburban neighborhoods in the City of Los Angeles. It is situated in the northernmost section of the San Fernando Valley and is home to more than 70,000 Angelenos. It covers approximately twelve square miles and encompasses the following zip code: 91342. Historically known for its profusion of sylvan olive orchards, Sylmar can trace its past to the 18th century and the founding of the San Fernando Mission. In 1890, olive production was begun systematically. The Sylmar climate was also considered healthy, and so a sanitarium was established, the first in a series of hospitals in the neighborhood. In 1893 the area was named Sylmar, a fusion of two Latin words for “forest” and “sea.” Sylmar’s olives became noted throughout the state for sweetness and purity.
Sylmar Employment Law
The employment relationship between employers and employees in Sylmar is subject to various distinct sets of laws at the local, state, and federal levels. State laws that regulate the workplace in Sylmar encompass a range of statutes, including, but not limited to, the California Constitution, the California Labor Code, the California Government Code, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the California Family Rights Act, and the California Business & Professions Code. In addition to state laws, federal laws also play a significant role in governing the workplace in Sylmar. These federal regulations encompass, 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, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. These laws collectively establish the framework within which employers and employees in Sylmar must operate, ensuring that workplace rights and obligations are upheld at both the state and federal levels.
Labor Law Attorneys in Sylmar, California
Finding the right labor lawyer in Sylmar can be a complex task, given the variety of approaches among different law firms. Not all employee attorneys in Sylmar are suitable for every case, as their strategies and priorities may differ significantly. Some employment lawyers may prioritize swift and simple settlements, even if they undervalue a case, while others are willing to engage in a protracted battle to secure a full and just resolution. The Akopyan Law Firm, takes a principled approach to achieve the best possible outcome for each client, regardless of the level of challenge it entails. Our commitment to delivering high-quality legal services requires us to limit our caseload, ensuring that every client is treated with the care and attention they deserve. We take immense pride in the personalized, first-class service we provide, but we encourage you to explore what our clients have to say about their experiences. The relationships we cultivate with our clients often extend beyond the duration of their cases. Our employment lawyers advocate passionately for our clients, as evidenced by the excellent results we have achieved. If you are seeking employment lawyers in Sylmar, we invite you to reach out for a complimentary case evaluation to learn how we can assist you.
We Can Help Sylmar Employees and Employers With Cases Involving:
Featured Employment Case
Haycock v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 22 Cal. App. 4th 1473, 28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 248 (1994), as modified on denial of reh’g (Feb. 28, 1994)
An employee sued for wrongful discharge. The Superior Court found for the employee. The rmployer appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court improperly usurped jury’s function in deciding, as matter of law, that implied employment contract existed between employee and employer. The trial court improperly usurped jury’s function in deciding, as matter of law, that implied employment contract existed between employee and employer; evidence existed that employee had never been promised permanent employment or told that he could be terminated only for just cause, and that any commitment concerning duration of employment had to be cleared with employer’s attorney’s, and, even if there had been no substantial evidence that employment was at-will, statutory presumption of at-will employment would require submitting issue to jury since presumption affected burden of proof.Existence of implied contract to discharge only for good cause is normally factual question for trier of fact. Because statutory presumption of at-will employment is one affecting burden of proof, rather than one affecting burden of producing evidence, it survives even though there may be conflict in evidence, requiring that issue be presented to jury so long as there is some logical basis for presumption. The opinion states in pertinent part as follows: “Labor Code section 2922 provides: “An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on **257 notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.” Labor Code section 2922 has been recognized as creating a presumption. (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 665, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373.) The statute creates a presumption of at-will employment which may be overcome “by evidence that despite the absence of a specified term, the parties agreed that the employer’s power to terminate would be limited in some way, e.g., by a requirement that termination be based only on ‘good cause.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 677, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373.) Evidence which may be considered in determining the existence of an implied in fact contract to terminate only for good cause includes: “ ‘[T]he personnel policies or practices of the employer, the employee’s longevity of service, actions or communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment, and the practices of the industry in which the employee is engaged.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 680, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373.) The California Supreme Court has held that the presumption of at-will employment exists because of public policy considerations. In Consolidated Theatres, Inc. v. Theatrical Stage Employees Union (1968) 69 Cal.2d 713, 727, fn. 12, 73 Cal.Rptr. 213, 447 P.2d 325, the court *1489 held: “Contracts of employment wherein the only consideration is the services to be performed thereunder and which are silent as to duration, are terminable at will upon reasonable notice without regard to duration. [Citations.] Special policy considerations require this result. ‘[T]he courts have not deemed it to be their function … to compel a person to accept or retain another in his [or her] employ, nor to compel any person against [her or] his will to remain in the employ of another. Indeed, they have consistently held that in such a confidential relationship, the privilege [to terminate] is absolute, and its presence of ill will or improper motive will not destroy it.’ [Citation.]” (Original emphasis.) As will be discussed later, it is of importance that the presumption of at-will employment is premised upon public policy considerations. Because the presumption of at-will employment is premised upon public policy considerations, it is one affecting the burden of proof. (See 1 Witkin, Cal.Evidence (3d ed. 1986) Burden of Proof and Presumptions, § 178, pp. 151–154.)
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results