Thousand Oaks Employment Attorneys

The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for both employers and employees in Thousand Oaks, California.

Thousand Oaks, California

Thousand Oaks is one of the larger cities in the County of Ventura.  The City of Thousand Oaks is a premiere community recognized for being one of the most desirable places in all of California to live, work, recreate, and raise a family. Located in between Los Angeles and Santa Barbara in Ventura County, Thousand Oaks is nestled against the Santa Monica Mountains and with over 15,000 acres of natural publicly owned open space located within the City’s boundaries. The City prides itself on its designated open space with 150 miles of trails for hiking, biking, or just leisurely walking. Our efforts at local electricity generation have also been very successful, especially at our wastewater treatment plant. Thousand Oaks is a Tree City, USA, and has been named one of the county’s greenest cities. Thousand Oaks has a storied past.  It was home to a Norwegian community in the late 1890s and early 1900s, known as Norwegian Colony. Norwegian settlers were among the first to settle in Conejo Valley. The Norwegian Colony was located at today’s intersection of Moorpark- and Olsen Roads, now home to California Lutheran University and surrounding areas. The son of Norwegian immigrants donated his ranch to California Lutheran College in the 1950s. California Lutheran University is now home to the Scandinavian American Cultural and Historical Foundation and the Scandinavian Festival.  Between 1950 and 1970, Conejo Valley experienced a population boom, and increased its population from 3,000 to 30,000 residents. From 3,500 residents in 1957, Thousand Oaks had over 103,000 inhabitants by 1989. While ranching and agriculture were the dominant industries until the 1950s, a number of new businesses appeared throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Particularly many high-tech firms moved to Thousand Oaks in the ’60s and ’70s. Packard Bell and Technology Instrument Company were two high-technology businesses that moved into the Newbury Park industrial park in the 1960s. Other companies that followed included Westinghouse Astroelectronics Laboratory, Semtech Corporation, Purolator Inc., and Westland Plastics. Thousand Oaks is home to more than 110,000 residents.  It covers approximately nine square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 91319, 91320, 91358, 91359, 91360, 91361, 91362.  The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. has offices in Oxnard.  Our employment lawyers stand ready to serve employees and employers in Thousand Oaks with all their employment law needs.

The Best Thousand Oaks Employment Lawyers

In the heart of Thousand Oaks, residents have many choice when it comes to legal services. This vibrant community is home to numerous lawyers and law firms, some of whom would go to great lengths to grab your attention – even barging into your living room for a sales pitch if they could. Yet, for both employers and employees in Thousand Oaks, navigating the complex terrain of employment law issues poses a formidable challenge. Amidst the cacophony of flashy radio advertisements and billboards plastered with eye-catching posters, finding the right attorney becomes an arduous task. Many turn to online searches for a solution, only to be bombarded with paid advertisements from so-called “billboard lawyers.” While these ads might suffice for some situations, others demand nothing short of the highest-quality representation provided by seasoned legal professionals. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., our attorneys bring to the table nearly two decades of experience. Our track record speaks volumes, boasting numerous successes on behalf of both employers and employees. What sets us apart is not just our experience, but our unapologetically aggressive approach to fighting for our clients’ rights. Unlike firms that invest in flashy radio ads, our attorneys prefer to channel their energy into the courtroom, where we fiercely advocate for our clients. We don’t merely ask you to take our word for it – we’re more than willing to provide references from satisfied clients upon request. Furthermore, our online reviews serve as a testament to our commitment to quality. With offices just minutes away from Thousand Oaks, we are poised and prepared to deliver top-tier legal representation to the community. When it comes to your legal needs, the Akopyan Law Firm is not just your choice – we’re your unwavering advocate, driven by an aggressive pursuit of justice.

We Can Help Thousand Oaks Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc., 47 Cal. 4th 610 (2009)

Citigroup offered a voluntary employee incentive compensation plan that provides employees with shares of restricted company stock at a reduced price in lieu of a portion of that employee’s annual cash compensation. Employees agree that, should they resign or be terminated for cause before their restricted shares of stock vest, they would forfeit the stock and the portion of cash compensation they directed be paid in the form of the restricted stock. The California Supreme Court considered whether the incentive plan’s forfeiture provision violates Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 219, which provide that employees be paid all earned, unpaid wages upon termination or resignation and prohibit agreements that purport to circumvent that requirement. The California Supreme Court concluded that the forfeiture provision does not run afoul of the Labor Code because no earned, unpaid wages remain outstanding upon termination according to the terms of the incentive plan. Accordingly, it affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal.  In its opinion the Court explained in part as follows:  “To ascertain whether the Plan’s forfeiture provision violates sections 201 and 202, we must first address whether Schachter (or any class member) would be owed—and therefore would be required to forfeit—any “earned and unpaid” wages upon resigning or being terminated for cause. (§ 201, subd. (a).) A wage is defined as “all amounts for labor performed by employees of every description, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard for time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method of calculation.” (§ 200, subd. (a).) We construe the term “wages” broadly to “include not only the periodic monetary earnings of the employee but also the other benefits to which he is entitled as a part of his compensation.” (Wise v. Southern Pac. Co. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 600, 607, 83 Cal.Rptr. 202, 463 P.2d 426.) “Courts have recognized that ‘wages’ also include those benefits to which an employee is entitled as a part of his or her compensation, including money, room, board, clothing, vacation pay, and sick pay. (E.g., Suastez v. Plastic Dress–Up Co. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 774, 780[, 183 Cal.Rptr. 846, 647 P.2d 122]; Department of Industrial Relations v. UI Video Stores, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1091[, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 457].)” (Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1103, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 880, 155 P.3d 284.) Incentive compensation, such as bonuses and profit-sharing plans, also constitute wages. (See Neisendorf, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 522, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 216; Lucian v. All States Trucking Co. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 972, 974, 171 Cal.Rptr. 262; Ware v. Merrill Lynch (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 35, 44, 100 Cal.Rptr. 791.)… Schachter correctly suggests that section 219 prohibits an employer and employee from agreeing, even voluntarily, to circumvent provisions of article I (consisting of §§ 200–243) of the Labor Code. Schachter also correctly argues that “agreement[s] prospectively waiving an employee’s rights under sections 201 [and 202] to receive all his or her earned but deferred or unpaid wages … constitute … waivers which section 219 renders illegal and unenforceable.” However, it is settled that an employer may unilaterally alter the terms of an employment agreement, provided such alteration does not run afoul of the Labor Code. (DiGiacinto v. Ameriko–Omserv Corp. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 629, 637, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 300 (DiGiacinto ); see 3 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed.) Agency and Employment, § 236 [unilateral reduction in wage].) “There is, of course, a strong common law presumption that an employee may be demoted at will. *620 Since it is presumed that an employee may be discharged at will (Lab.Code, § 2922), the at-will presumption would surely apply to lesser quant [a] of discipline as well.” (Scott v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 454, 464–465, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 427, 904 P.2d 834; see DiGiacinto, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at pp. 634–635, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 300.) The at-will presumption authorizing an employer to discharge or demote an employee similarly and necessarily authorizes an employer to unilaterally alter the terms of employment, provided that the alteration does not violate a statute or breach an implied or express contractual agreement. (Scott v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 465, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 427, 904 P.2d 834; DiGiacinto, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 637, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 300.) An “employee who continues in the employ of the employer after the employer has given notice of changed terms or conditions of employment has accepted the changed terms and conditions.” (DiGiacinto, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 637, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 300.)  It cannot be questioned that employers and employees are free to prospectively and bilaterally alter the terms of employment. As we recently noted, “ ‘[s]traight-time wages (above the minimum ***11 wage) are a matter of private contract between the employer and employee.’ ” (Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, 456, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 773, 165 P.3d 556, quoting Earley v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1420, 1430, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 57.) Here, when Schachter submitted his Plan election form in December 1994, he agreed to a restructured compensation package for the following year that included a lower annual salary and payment in the form of restricted stock “subject to all of the provisions and administrative rules of the Plan.” Again, in 1995, Schachter submitted a Plan election form requesting that he be paid entirely in cash during the first six months of 1996, and in cash and restricted stock during the latter six months of 1996. He acknowledged that his resignation or termination for cause before the end of the two-year vesting period would result in forfeiture of the restricted stock and the percentage of his compensation that he “authorized to be paid in the form of such restricted stock.” Schachter does not contest that he received all of the cash compensation to which he was entitled. Instead, he argues that the portion of compensation he directed be paid to him in the form of restricted stock should have been transformed into a cash payment upon his resignation. This argument is unavailing. When he executed the Plan election forms, Schachter essentially renegotiated the terms of his compensation with the company. Schachter elected to be compensated with a mixture of cash and restricted stock in 1995, and for one six-month period in 1996. He also elected to be paid wholly in cash for one six-month period in 1996. Schachter understood that *621 the restricted **270 stock he opted to receive would have limited and conditional present value and would not fully vest until two years following the date he received it, provided he remained employed by the company. As the Court of Appeal explained, “Schachter necessarily agreed his compensation would consist of cash payments and a retention-based conditional interest in the shares, with the latter being earned only if he remained with [the company] for two years. He elected not to remain for the designated period…. Accordingly, Schachter did not earn—and thus had no right to receive—either the restricted stock or the funds used to purchase it.”