Valencia Employment Attorneys

The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the rights of the residents of Valencia, 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.

Valencia, California

Valencia is a neighborhood in Santa Clarita located within Los Angeles County, California. It is one of the four unincorporated communities that merged to create the city of Santa Clarita in 1987. Valencia has an interesting past. In 1769, the Spanish Portola expedition, first Europeans to see inland areas of California, came up and over the pass from the San Fernando Valley and camped near the river on August 8–9. They found a large native village there and witnessed a wedding celebration. Fray Juan Crespi, a Franciscan missionary travelling with the expedition, named the river Santa Clara and noted in his diary that the place would be a good location for a mission. On the return trip, however, the party found a less strenuous trail through Conejo Valley. Later travelers also preferred that route, and Mission San Fernando Rey de España was established down in the valley. The master planned portion of Valencia was first planned in the 1960s by the Newhall Land and Farming Company. Development began in 1967, continues to the present day, and is nearing completion. Valencia is notable for its landscaped boulevards connecting a mix of apartment buildings, single-family detached homes, shopping centers, office parks and industrial warehouses. The city is known for its extensive network of pedestrian and bike paths known as paseos. These scenic trails wind through the community, connecting neighborhoods, parks, and commercial areas.  The Valencia Town Center is a popular shopping and dining destination, featuring a variety of shops, restaurants, and entertainment options. It’s anchored by the Westfield Valencia Town Center Mall. The Valencia Industrial Center is one of the largest industrial parks in Los Angeles County, housing numerous businesses and corporations. It has contributed to the local economy and job opportunities. Valencia encompasses the following zip codes: 91355, 91381. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles and has offices in Bakersfield. We are minutes away from Valencia. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide legal services to both employees and employers in Valencia.

The Best Employment Lawyer in Valencia

Valencia, a thriving and growing community, offers its residents a wealth of choices when it comes to legal representation. A simple online search for “Valencia employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Valencia” is likely to flood your screen with paid advertisements from employment lawyers hailing from various corners. Amid this sea of options, the challenge lies in selecting the right attorney who possesses the requisite skill, experience, and dedication to address your specific legal needs. Relying solely on paid internet advertisements can be a daunting task. It becomes an even greater challenge when trying to ascertain whether a particular attorney is truly well-versed in employment law and boasts a successful track record in handling employment trials and litigation. The stark reality is that an enticing ad does not always equate to exceptional legal representation. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we differentiate ourselves through our almost two decades of unwavering commitment to the field of employment law. Each of our attorneys possesses a wealth of experience and expertise, earning them a reputation for excellence in representing both employees and employers. Our approach is firmly rooted in a commitment to quality, rather than quantity. We prioritize dedicating our time, resources, and skills to advocate zealously for our clients’ rights, ensuring they receive the top-tier representation they deserve. Our aim is to provide legal services that transcend flashy advertising and instead focus on delivering the results our clients require. We do not merely want you to take our word for it; we are more than willing to provide client references upon request. Additionally, we invite you to explore our online reviews, which serve as a testament to our unwavering dedication and consistent success. Conveniently located just minutes away from Valencia, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is poised to offer legal representation of the highest caliber to the residents of this vibrant community. When you require legal assistance in navigating the complexities of employment law, rest assured that we are here to stand by your side, ensuring that your rights are protected, and your legal concerns are addressed with precision and professionalism. Trust in our proven experience to guide you through the legal process and secure the best possible outcome for your case.

We Can Help Valencia Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th 1238, 876 P.2d 1022 (1994)

Employee brought suit alleging, inter alia, constructive discharge in violation of public policy and breach of contract. The Superior Court, Riverside County, No. 198551, Victor Miceli, J., granted summary judgment for employer on breach of contract and public policy claims. Employee appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court granted review, superseding opinion of the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court, Lucas, C.J., held that: (1) employee was not constructively discharged, and (2) employee failed to show wrongful discharge in violation of fundamental public policy.  In this seminal case regarding constructive discharge, the Court explained as follows: “Under the cases, an employee cannot simply “quit and sue,” claiming he or she was constructively discharged. The conditions giving rise to the resignation must be sufficiently extraordinary and egregious to overcome the normal motivation of a competent, diligent, and reasonable employee to remain on the job to earn a livelihood and to serve his or her employer. The proper focus is on whether the resignation was coerced, not whether it was simply one rational option for the employee. ” ‘An employee may not be unreasonably sensitive to his [or her] working environment…. Every job has its frustrations, challenges, and disappointments; these inhere ***228 **1027 in the nature of work. An employee is protected from … unreasonably harsh conditions, in excess of those faced by his [or her] co-workers. He [or she] is not, however, guaranteed a working environment free of stress.’ ” (Goldsmith v. Mayor and City of Baltimore (4th Cir.1993) 987 F.2d 1064, 1072.) In order to amount to a constructive discharge, adverse working conditions must be unusually “aggravated” or amount to a “continuous pattern” before the situation will be deemed intolerable.3 In general, “[s]ingle, trivial, or isolated acts of [misconduct] are insufficient” to support a constructive discharge claim. (Silver, Public Employee Discharge and Discipline (1989) § 1.5, p. 1–13.) Moreover, a poor performance rating or a demotion, even when accompanied by reduction in pay, does not by itself trigger a constructive discharge. “There appears to be no disagreement [in the cases] that one of the essential elements of any constructive discharge claim is that the adverse working conditions must be so intolerable that any reasonable employee would resign rather than endure such conditions.” (Slack, supra, 423 S.E.2d at p. 556.) Various terms such as “intolerable” or “aggravated” have been used to describe the subnormal character of the working conditions required to establish constructive discharge. (Slack, supra, 423 S.E.2d at p. 556; see also Zilmer, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at p. 38, 263 Cal.Rptr. 422; Brady, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 1306, 242 Cal.Rptr. 324.) The essence of the test is whether, under all the circumstances, the working conditions are so unusually adverse that a reasonable employee in plaintiff’s position “ ‘ “would have felt compelled to resign.” ’ ” (Slack, supra, 423 S.E.2d at p. 556, quoting Calhoun v. Acme Cleveland Corp. (1st Cir.1986) 798 F.2d 559, 561.) As the citations and quotations in the previous section reveal, the cases are in agreement that the standard by which a constructive discharge is determined is an objective one—the question is “whether a reasonable person faced with the allegedly intolerable employer actions or conditions of employment would have no reasonable alternative except to quit.” (Rochlis v. Walt Disney Co. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 201, 212, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 793 [hereafter Rochlis ], citing Brady, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 1306, 242 Cal.Rptr. 324 and Lojek v. Thomas (9th Cir.1983) 716 F.2d 675, 681.) A constructive discharge is the practical and legal equivalent of a dismissal—the employee’s resignation must be employer-coerced, not caused by the voluntary action of the employee or by conditions or matters beyond the employer’s reasonable control. In Brady, the Court of Appeal concluded that a majority of other courts had declined to impose a requirement of express employer intent in constructive discharge cases and adopted instead an element mandating only ***229 **1028 the employer’s “actual or constructive knowledge of the intolerable actions and of their impact on the employee” in a situation the employer “could have remedied.” (Brady, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 1306, 242 Cal.Rptr. 324, italics added.) The Brady court did not define the term “constructive knowledge,” but observed that its goal in developing a test for constructive discharge was “to insure that a peaceful on-the-job resolution has been attempted or was futile.” (Ibid.).”

 Avvo Rating 10 Superb


Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients

Check Out Our Case Results

$6.131 MillionEmployment: Disability Discrimination
$3.85 MillionEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$950 ThousandEmployment: Retaliation
$800 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$750 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$700 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination / Race Discrimination
$658 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$650 ThousandPersonal Injury: Automobile Collision
$375 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$325 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$300 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination / Race Discrimination
$295 ThousandEmployment: Wage and Hour
$265 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$250 ThousandEmployment: Pregnancy Discrimination
$250 ThousandEmployment Law: Disability Discrimination
$240 ThousandEmployment: Disability Discrimination
$240 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$200 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$199 ThousandEmployment: Pregnancy Discrimination
$195 ThousandEmployment: Religious Discrimination
$193 ThousandEmployment: Failure to Accommodate
$180 ThousandEmployment: Unpaid Wages
$175 ThousandEmployment: Whistleblower Retaliation
$175 ThousandEmployment: Medical Leave Retaliation
$174 ThousandEmployment: Wage and Hour
$167 ThousandEmployment: Wage and Hour
$160 ThousandEmployment: Unpaid Wages
$158 ThousandBreach of Contract
$150 ThousandEmployment: Reverse Race Discrimination
$130 ThousandEmployment: Race Discrimination
$125 ThousandEmployment: Sexual Harassment
$125 ThousandEmployment: Disability Discrimination
$125 ThousandEmployment: Medical Leave Retaliation
$120 ThousandEmployment: Unpaid Commission Wages
$120 ThousandEmployment: Retaliation
$120 ThousandPersonal Injury: Automobile Collision
$107 ThousandEmployment: Whistleblower Retaliation
$100 ThousandEmployment: Religious Discrimination
$100 ThousandEmployment: Failure to Accommodate
$100 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Bicycle Collision
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Pedestrian Collision