Torrance Employment Attorneys

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

Torrance, California

Torrance is a city in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The city is part of what is known as the South Bay region of the area. Torrance has 1.5 miles of beachfront on the Pacific Ocean and a moderate year-round climate. Torrance was incorporated in 1921, and at the 2020 census had a population of 147,067 residents. The city has 30 parks. The city consistently ranks among the safest cities in Los Angeles County.  Torrance encompasses the following zip codes: 90501, 90502, 90503, 90504, 90505, 90506, 90507, 90508, 90509, 90510. In 1784, the Spanish Crown deeded Rancho San Pedro (including present-day Torrance), a tract of over 75,000 acres in the Province of Las Californias of New Spain, to soldier Juan José Domínguez. It was later divided in 1846, with Governor Pío Pico granting Rancho de los Palos Verdes to José Loreto and Juan Capistrano Sepulveda in the Alta California territory of independent Mexico. In the early 1900s, real estate developer Jared Sidney Torrance and other investors saw the value of creating a mixed industrial–residential community south of Los Angeles. They purchased part of an old Spanish land grant and hired landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. to design a planned community. The resulting town was founded in October 1912 and named after Torrance. The city of Torrance was formally incorporated in May 1921. Torrance is a diverse and dynamic city with a strong sense of community, a thriving business sector, and a range of cultural and recreational amenities.  The city is home to a thriving business environment, with numerous companies, including Honda, Toyota, and ExxonMobil, having a presence in Torrance. The presence of these corporations contributes to the city’s economic stability. Torrance has cultural attractions like the Torrance Art Museum and the Torrance Cultural Arts Center, which hosts a variety of performances and exhibitions throughout the year. With offices in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Torrance. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Torrance.

The Best Employment Lawyers in Torrance

Torrance, California, boasts its central location, offering residents a plethora of choices when it comes to legal services. The city is teeming with numerous lawyers and law firms eager to serve its residents. However, in the midst of this abundance, finding the right lawyer can be akin to finding a needle in a haystack. It’s essential for both employers and employees facing legal challenges in the realm of employment law to identify the most suitable attorney to champion their cause. The quest for the perfect attorney can be further complicated by the relentless barrage of gimmicky radio advertisements and eye-catching posters adorning billboards, buses, and street benches. While some may be drawn in by these flashy tactics, it’s crucial to discern that not all attorneys are created equal, and not every case is suited for a one-size-fits-all approach. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we take pride in our attorneys’ exceptional skills and talent, honed over nearly two decades in the field of employment law. Each of our legal professionals possesses a deep understanding of the intricacies and nuances of employment-related disputes, enabling us to provide tailored solutions for our clients. We’ve built a solid track record of success, advocating for the rights and interests of both employers and employees. Our commitment lies in the courtroom, where we vigorously fight for our clients’ rights, as opposed to spending our time in a recording studio crafting catchy radio ads. We firmly believe that our clients’ satisfaction and success should speak for itself. That’s why we’re more than willing to provide client references upon request, and we encourage you to explore our online reviews. With our offices just minutes away from Torrance, we’re poised and prepared to deliver top-tier legal representation to the residents of this vibrant community. When it comes to legal matters, trust in our experienced team and their exceptional talent to guide you through the complexities of employment law.

We Can Help Torrance Residents With Cases Involving:

Featured Employment Case

Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Int’l, Inc., 17 Cal. 4th 93, 948 P.2d 412 (1998)

An employee who was discharged for sexual harassment sued for wrongful discharge. The Superior Court entered judgment on jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, and employer appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, and plaintiff petitioned for review. The Supreme Court, Brown, J., held that: (1) when employee hired under an implied agreement not to be dismissed except for “good cause” is fired for misconduct and challenges the termination in court, role of jury is not to decide whether the misconduct occurred, but whether employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the misconduct occurred and otherwise acted fairly, and (2) it was error to instruct jury that employer could prevail only if jury was satisfied that sexual harassment actually occurred.  The California Supreme Court’s opinion states in part as follows: “When an employee hired under an implied agreement not to be dismissed except for “good cause” is fired for misconduct and challenges the termination in court, what is the role of the jury in deciding whether misconduct occurred? Does it decide whether the acts that led to the decision to terminate happened? Or is its role to decide whether the employer had reasonable grounds for believing they happened and otherwise acted fairly? The Courts of Appeal are divided over the question. The majority of California decisions suggest the jury’s role is to decide whether the employer concluded misconduct occurred “fairly, honestly, and in good faith.” That standard, or variations on it, appears to be the rule in most other jurisdictions as well. But at least one Court of Appeal opinion adopts a more expansive view. It holds the jury must decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred as a matter of fact, and places the burden of proving it on the employer. We granted review to clarify the role of the jury in litigation alleging breach of an implied contract not to terminate employment except for good or just cause, and to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeal. The better reasoned view, we conclude, prescribes the jury’s role as deciding *96 whether the employer acted with “ ‘a fair and honest cause or reason, regulated by good faith.’ ” That language is from Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 330, 171 Cal.Rptr. 917 (Pugh I ), the font of implied contract-based wrongful termination law in California. Recently, in Scott v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 454, 467, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 427, 904 P.2d 834 (Scott ), we elaborated on the content of good or just cause by enumerating what it is not: reasons that are “ ‘trivial, capricious, unrelated to business needs or goals, or pretextual.’ ” (Quoting Wood v. Loyola Marymount University (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 661, 670, 267 Cal.Rptr. 230.) Today, we expressly adopt a governing standard that combines the formulations in both Scott, supra, 11 Cal.4th at page 467, 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 427, 904 P.2d 834, and Pugh I, supra, 116 Cal.App.3d at page 330, 171 Cal.Rptr. 917 (the Scott–Pugh standard), elaborating on its meaning and how it should be administered by trial judges to promote the policies underlying implied-contract-based wrongful discharge claims involving employee misconduct. And because the Court of Appeal relied on a substantially similar standard in overturning a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff-employee in this case and ordering a new trial, we affirm its judgment as well. We disapprove Wilkerson v. Wells Fargo Bank (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1217, 261 Cal.Rptr. 185, the only published Court of Appeal decision adopting a broader view of the jury’s function in this species of wrongful discharge litigation.