Temecula Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in Temecula, California.
Temecula is a city located in Riverside County. Temecula is home to more than 110,000 residents. It covers approximately nine square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 92589, 92590, 92591, 92592, and 92593. Temecula is well known for its championship golf courses, a climate perfect for serene and beautiful hot-air ballooning adventures, and award-winning wineries nestled in 3,000 acres of picturesque wine country, but that’s just the beginning. The community’s mix of entertaining activities and friendly residents makes visitors want to return again and again. Located in the heart of Temecula, the Old Town district blends historic buildings with over 640 antique dealers, unique shopping, and restaurants. Great weather and fresh air will encourage you to take the family for a hike on the Santa Rosa Plateau Wildlife Preserve, or delight in a day of boating and fishing at Lake Skinner, the site of the annual Balloon and Wine Festival, or nearby Diamond Valley Lake.
The Best Employment Lawyers in Temecula
Temecula residents have a plethora of choices when it comes to lawyers and law firms offering their services. The challenge for employers and employees in Temecula facing serious legal issues related to employment law is finding the right attorney to address their specific needs. The search for the right lawyer can be further complicated by the constant barrage of gimmicky radio ads and billboard advertisements. While online searches for “Temecula employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Temecula” may yield numerous paid advertisements from various lawyers, it’s important to recognize that not all attorneys are equally experienced or equipped to handle your case effectively. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each of our attorneys boasts almost two decades of experience in employment law. We have a demonstrated history of success representing both employers and employees in various legal matters. Our firm’s core philosophy centers on delivering quality legal representation, rather than focusing on quantity. We prioritize spending our time in the courtroom, passionately advocating for our clients’ rights, rather than investing in flashy radio ads. We believe in earning our clients’ trust, and we are more than willing to provide references upon request. Additionally, you can review our online client reviews to gain insights into our track record of excellence. With offices conveniently located in Riverside, Orange, and Burbank, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Temecula. Our employment lawyers are fully prepared to offer world-class legal services and top-tier representation to the residents of Temecula.
We Can Help Temecula Residents With Cases Involving
Featured Employment Case
McGrory v. Applied Signal Tech., Inc., 212 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 154 (2013)
A male supervisor sued his employer for wrongful termination in violation of public policy under Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the employer. On appeal the Court of Appeal held that: 1 FEHA’s retaliation provision does not shield lying or withholding information during an employer’s internal investigation; 2 evidence that justification for employee’s termination was unsubstantiated was insufficient to show it was untrue or pretextual under FEHA; 3 speculative evidence of disparate treatment was insufficient to show employer’s proffered justification was untrue or pretextual under FEHA; and 4 common interest privilege applied to vice president’s statements about reasons for supervisor’s termination. The court’s opinion states in part as follows: “As this court has repeatedly explained in cases alleging wrongful termination, regardless of who bears the burden of proof at trial, a plaintiff opposing a summary judgment has no obligation to produce evidence until the moving defendant has established either the existence of a complete defense or the absence of an essential element of plaintiff’s claim. ( Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1718, 1730–1731, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 181; Nelson v. United Technologies (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 597, 613, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 239 ( Nelson ); Reeves v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 95, 107, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 717; Hicks v. KNTV Television, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 994, 1003, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 240 ( Hicks ).) Accordingly, we disregard the parties’ dispute about whether Employee has established a prima facie showing of discrimination, an evidentiary threshold that would be applicable at trial. ( Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., supra, 29 Cal.App.4th 1718, 1730, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 181; Addy v. Bliss & Glennon (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 205, 215–216, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 642; Nelson, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th 597, 613, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 239.) The ultimate issue when discriminatory discharge is alleged is what were the employer’s true reasons for terminating the employee. ( Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th 317, 358, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089 [“the ultimate issue is simply whether the employer acted with a motive to discriminate illegally ”]; Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 715, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 406 ( Mamou ) [“The central issue is and should remain whether the evidence as a whole supports a reasoned inference that the challenged action was the product of discriminatory or retaliatory animus.”].) As indicated above, an employer need not have good cause to terminate an at-will employee. The reason for termination need not be wise or correct so long as it is not grounded on a prohibited bias. ( Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th 317, 358, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.)10
78 An employer’s burden can be met by producing evidence of one or more reasons for the adverse employment action that were “unrelated to unlawful discrimination.” **166 ( Hicks, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th 994, 1003, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 240; cf. Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th 317, 360, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.) In this case, it does not appear that Employer provided Employee with a written statement of reasons for his termination, but they have been articulated by Employer’s HR Vice–President, Forcht, in a declaration filed in support of Employer’s motion for summary judgment. First, Employee violated Employer’s policies on sexual harassment and business and personal *1525 ethics. Second, he was untruthful and uncooperative with the investigator. Third, there was a concern that his behavior might create future legal liability for Employer. We will examine Employee’s response to each reason in turn.”
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results