Tujunga Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the rights of the residents of Tujunga, 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.
Tujunga is a neighborhood in Los Angeles. Tujunga has an interesting past. In 1907, social philosopher and community organizer William Ellsworth Smythe joined forces with real estate speculator Marshall V. Hartranft to found what Smythe believed would be a kind of utopia. The utopianists had as their slogan, “A Little Land and a Lot of Living,” and the founders divided their community into 1.5-acre lots, which they called “little lands”. An early advertising slogan was “Move to Tujunga with a trowel and a bag of cement, and build your own.” After the end of World War I, hundreds of “rent-oppressed” people from Los Angeles did exactly that, and they built their houses with foundations fashioned from the “great masses of stones and boulders” that lay throughout the town. By 1927, Tujunga had about 4,000 residents, having surpassed Sunland in population. Many of the settlers maintained small farms with gardens, poultry, rabbits, bees, and various other livestock. Tujunga was nevertheless incorporated after an election on April 21, 1925. Tujunga’s 1,500-foot (460 m) elevation and geographic isolation from the San Fernando Valley and the Los Angeles Basin freed it from some of the air pollution that was a problem in many other parts of Greater Los Angeles. Because of this, it attracted many asthmatics early on. The first election for Tujunga to be consolidated with Los Angeles was held on February 15, 1927. In heavy rain, voters turned down the idea by a vote of 594 to 354. A second election held in March 1930 also resulted in defeat for annexation, “by a large majority”. In 1932 there was a vote to join Los Angeles, although the actual transfer was delayed by inaction of state authorities. Tujunga abandoned its independence and joined the city on March 8, 1932. Tujunga is home to more than 30,000 residents. The neighborhood lies between the Verdugo Mountains and the San Gabriel Mountains. It is contiguous on the east with La Crescenta-Montrose. Sunland and Tujunga are divided by Mount Gleason Avenue, with Sunland on the west and Tujunga on the east. Mount Lukens, located within Tujunga, is the highest point in Los Angeles, at 5,074 ft. It covers approximately ten square miles and encompasses the 91042 zip code. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Burbank which is minutes away from Tujunga. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide legal services to both employees and employers in Tujunga.
Finding The Best Employment Lawyer in Tujunga
Tujunga, nestled within its vibrant community, offers its residents an array of choices when it comes to legal representation. A quick online search for “Tujunga employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Tujunga” may inundate you with paid advertisements from employment lawyers far and wide. The challenge lies in selecting the right attorney, one equipped with the essential skills and experience necessary to navigate the complexities of employment trials and litigation. In a world where flashy internet advertisements can make it challenging to discern a lawyer’s true expertise, it becomes crucial to place your trust in a legal team with a proven track record. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each of our attorneys boasts nearly two decades of experience in employment law. This wealth of knowledge, combined with a history of success in representing both employees and employers, sets us apart. Our firm’s guiding principle is quality over quantity. We prioritize dedicating our time and resources to provide top-tier legal representation rather than investing in flashy advertising campaigns. We understand the importance of ensuring our clients’ rights are protected and upheld in the courtroom.With offices located just minutes away from Tujunga, we stand at the ready to deliver the highest caliber of legal representation to the residents of this thriving community. When it comes to your employment-related legal matters, trust in our experienced team to advocate passionately on your behalf. We are committed to serving you with excellence and diligence, ensuring your interests are safeguarded throughout the legal process.
We Can Help Tujunga Residents With:
Featured Employment Case
Moore v. May Dep’t Stores Co., 222 Cal. App. 3d 836 (Ct. App. 1990)
A former jewelry coordinator for a department store sued for wrongful termination. The Superior Court entered summary judgment in the department store’s favor. The jewelry coordinator appealed. The Court of Appeal held that: (1) good cause existed, as matter of law, supporting jewelry coordinator’s discharge for violation of store security policies which resulted in loss of $50,000 in merchandise, and (2) employer did not breach implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in terminating employee immediately following loss. The Court’s opinion explained as follows: “The terms “just cause” and “good cause” have been difficult to define and depend on the circumstances of each case. “Essentially, they connote ‘a fair and honest cause or reason, regulated by good faith on the *840 part of the party exercising the power.’ [Citation.] Care must be taken, however, not to interfere with the legitimate exercise of managerial discretion…. And where, as here, the employee occupies a sensitive managerial or confidential position, the employer must of necessity be allowed substantial scope for the exercise of subjective judgment. [Citation.]” (Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc. (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 330, 171 Cal.Rptr. 917.) May Company presented the declaration of its Senior Vice–President of Human Resources that appellant’s “failure to safeguard property and failure to follow company policies warranted immediate discharge.” The Senior Vice–President declared that “[i]t is essential that the May Company control theft of its property and take appropriate action when its employees violate policies designed to prevent thefts of the type which occurred in this case.” He also stated, shortly before appellant’s termination “May Company was the victim of a theft of gold jewelry with a value of [$15,600]” and “[t]he employee responsible for leaving the glass case [from which the jewelry was stolen] open while she waited on a customer was terminated based on the same policies relied on in [appellant’s] termination.” The trial court correctly concluded that there was good cause, as a matter of law, to terminate appellant. Her violation of May Company security procedures as jewelry coordinator, resulted in the loss of over $50,000 in merchandise. Appellant admits that she was aware of May Company security procedures for the jewelry departments set forth in the “Standard Practice Instructions,” and that she probably assisted in drafting them. There was no hint that the asserted reason for her termination was capricious or unrelated to business needs or goals, or pretextual. Under the facts of this case, we do not believe that a jury should be allowed to decide the correctness of May Company’s business judgment in terminating appellant.”
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results