Valley Glen Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. represents employers and employees in Valley Glen, California, in matters involving employment law.

Valley Glen Labor Lawyers

Valley Glen is a neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles.  Valley Glen is located in the east San Fernando Valley.  Although Valley Glen covers an area which is less than five square miles, it is home to more than sixty thousand residents.  Valley glen covers the following zip codes: 91401, 91405, 91606, and 91607.  Once part of Van Nuys and North Hollywood, it became a separate neighborhood in 1998. Valley Glen is home to Los Angeles Valley College which is the center of influence for education, personal development, lifelong learning, cultural activities, and career training in the San Fernando Valley.

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in the City of Burbank which is just a few miles to the east of Valley Glen.  Akopyan Law Firm’s main office in Burbank is only minutes away from Valley Glen.  Therefore it is a convenient powerhouse law firm offering its top notch services to employees and employers in the Valley Glen area.

The Best Employment Law Lawyer in Valley Glen

Finding the right employment attorney in Valley Glen, California, can be challenging due to its primarily residential nature, resulting in limited local options. A Google search for “Valley Glen employment lawyer” often leads to paid advertisements from attorneys located in other parts of Greater Los Angeles. Choosing the ideal lawyer becomes complex when relying solely on these ads. Distinguishing a seasoned employment attorney with extensive experience in handling employment disputes from the crowd can be daunting. For Valley Glen residents seeking expert employment legal assistance, the Akopyan Law Firm offers a solution. Our team of highly skilled employment lawyers boasts over a decade of experience in employment law, successfully representing both employers and employees. We excel at delivering top-tier results in employment cases, and our commitment extends beyond our experience to our dedication to clients. Our conveniently located offices are just minutes away from Valley Glen, combining legal expertise with local accessibility. Trust the Akopyan Law Firm to navigate the intricacies of employment law and secure the best possible outcome for your case.

We Can Help Valley Glen Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

Thompson v. Tracor Flight Sys., Inc., 86 Cal. App. 4th 1156, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 95 (2001)

Former employee brought wrongful termination action against employer, alleging constructive discharge from her position as director of human resources and retaliatory discharge for engaging in protected activities. The Superior Court, Kern County, No. 231199, Jon E. Stuebbe, J., entered judgment on jury’s verdict for employee. Employer appealed. The Court of Appeal, Vartabedian, Acting P.J., held that: (1) evidence established intolerable working conditions, as element of constructive discharge, and (2) trial court did not abuse its equitable discretion by refusing to bar or limit employer’s damages, based on after-acquired evidence that employee had taken home copies of company documents.  In its opinion the court explanded on the notion of construction discharge: “An employer is considered to have discharged an employee when “the employer’s conduct effectively forces an employee to resign. Although the employee may say, ‘I quit,’ the employment relationship is actually severed involuntarily by the employer’s acts, against the employee’s will.” (Turner v. Anheuser–Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 1244–1245, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022 [hereafter Turner].) This form of termination of the employment relationship is commonly known as “constructive discharge” and it is “legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation.” (Id. at p. 1245, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) In Turner, the Supreme Court traced the development of the constructive discharge doctrine from cases decided under the National Labor Relations Act, through federal employment discrimination cases, and into state law wrongful discharge cases. (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1246, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) The opinion then traced the development of the standard in the appellate courts of California, noting there were two primary aspects necessary for a finding of constructive discharge: first, there must be intolerable working conditions; second, the employer must in some manner be held to knowledge of the conditions. (Id. at p. 1251, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.)  As to the second issue, the Turner court modified the law as it had been established by the Court of Appeal. Rejecting liability based on constructive knowledge, the Turner opinion held that the employer must “either intentionally create[ ] or knowingly permit[ ]” the intolerable conditions in order to be held liable. (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1251, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) As to the first issue, however, Turner reaffirmed the “intolerable conditions” requirement in the same terms as it **103 had been developed in the federal courts and in the California Court of Appeal: “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.’ ” ‘ [Citations.]” (Turner, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1247, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) More specifically, “[t]he 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.” (Id. at p. 1246, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) “

 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
$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: Failure to Accommodate
$100 ThousandEmployment: Wrongful Termination
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Bicycle Collision
$100 ThousandPersonal Injury: Pedestrian Collision