Van Nuys Employment Attorneys

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

Van Nuys, California

Van Nuys is one of the larger neighborhoods in the City of Los Angeles.  It is situated in the center of the San Fernando Valley and is home to more than 110,000 Angelenos.  It covers approximately nine square miles, and encompasses the following zip codes: 91316, 91401, 91402, 91403, 91405, 91406, 91411, 91423, and 91436.  Van Nuys is home to the Van Nuys Airport, which is one of two main airports in the San Fernando Valley.  Van Nuys was founded in 1911 and named for one of its developers, Isaac Newton Van Nuys.  Van Nuys was annexed by Los Angeles on May 22, 1915, after the Los Angeles Aqueduct was completed.  Van Nuys became the Valley’s satellite Los Angeles municipal civic center with the 1932 Valley Municipal Building (Van Nuys City Hall) starting the present-day Government Center complex of government services buildings. It is the central hub for the San Fernando Valley. The Van Nuys Train Depot, built in 1936, is a historic Art Deco building that served as a train station. Although it no longer serves as a train station, it stands as a testament to the neighborhood’s past. Van Nuys has a significant aviation history. During World War II, the Van Nuys Airport was a key facility for training military pilots. Today, it’s one of the busiest general aviation airports in the world. The Motion Picture and Television Fund’s Wasserman Campus in Woodland Hills, near Van Nuys, has been a popular location for filming. It features soundstages and has been used for various productions. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in the City of Los Angeles which is minutes away from Van Nuys.  Thus, the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. offers legal services to both employees and employers in the Van Nuys area.

The Best Employment Lawyers in Van Nuys

Van Nuys, with its central location, offers its residents a plethora of options when it comes to legal services. However, the abundance of choices can make finding the right lawyer a daunting task, especially in cases involving employment law. The challenge lies in distinguishing the ideal attorney from the sea of options, exacerbated by the constant barrage of attention-grabbing radio ads and billboard advertisements. While some may resort to online searches like “Van Nuys employment lawyer” or “best Van Nuys attorney,” these often yield paid advertisements from lawyers who prioritize marketing over substance. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we offer a refreshing alternative. Each of our attorneys boasts nearly two decades of experience in employment law, with a proven track record of success for both employers and employees. We prioritize quality over quantity and dedicate our time to the courtroom, vigorously defending our clients’ rights instead of recording catchy radio ads. We believe actions speak louder than words, and we are more than willing to provide client references upon request. You can also validate our credentials through online reviews. With offices located just minutes away from Van Nuys, we are well-prepared to provide residents with the highest caliber legal representation. Trust the Akopyan Law Firm for your employment law needs.

We Can Help Van Nuys Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

Simers v. Los Angeles Times Commc’ns, LLC, 18 Cal. App. 5th 1248 (2018)

In March 2013, plaintiff T.J. Simers was a well-known and sometimes controversial sports columnist for Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC (The Times or defendant). He had held that position since 2000, receiving uniformly favorable and often exceptional performance reviews from defendant. On March 16, 2013, plaintiff, then 62 years old, suffered a neurological event with symptoms similar to a “mini-stroke.” He recovered quickly, for the most part, and soon was again writing his thrice-weekly column. Two and a half months later, The Times reduced plaintiff’s columns to two per week, to “give [him] more time to write on [his] columns.” His editors expressed the dissatisfaction of upper management with several recent columns, and stated “they had been having problems with [his] writing for the past 18 months.” Two weeks later, The Times learned from an article in *1251 another publication that a Hollywood producer (who had just filmed a 90-second video that had “gone viral,” in connection with one of plaintiff’s columns) was apparently developing a television show loosely based on plaintiff’s life. Viewing this as a possible ethical breach, defendant put plaintiff’s columns “on holiday” for 10 days, and then, on June 24, 2013, suspended the column pending an investigation. On August 8, 2013, after completion of the investigation and several meetings with plaintiff, defendant issued a “final written warning” that removed plaintiff from his position as a columnist and made him a senior reporter, albeit with no reduction in salary “for now.” Plaintiff’s lawyer informed defendant on August 12 that plaintiff could not work in that environment and considered himself to have been constructively terminated. On September 4, 2013, The Times asked plaintiff to return to his position as columnist. But defendant did not answer plaintiff’s questions about how many columns he would write and whether he had to change his interviewing approach, and plaintiff did not trust The Times. The next day, plaintiff met with editors at the Orange County Register, and by September 9, 2013, had accepted a position as a columnist there. On October 15, 2013, plaintiff sued The Times. After a 28-day trial in the fall of 2015, the jury found in favor of plaintiff on his claims of disability and age discrimination, and on his claim of constructive termination. The jury awarded plaintiff $2,137,391 in economic damages for harm **700 caused by his constructive termination and $5 million in noneconomic damages. The parties agreed to give the jury a special verdict form that instructed them to fill in the blanks for past and future economic damages only if they found plaintiff was constructively terminated. The special verdict form allowed the jury to award past and future noneconomic damages without identifying which noneconomic damages were caused by the constructive termination and which were caused by the discrimination. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on plaintiff’s constructive termination claim, and otherwise denied JNOV, finding substantial evidence supported the verdict on plaintiff’s age and disability discrimination claims. The court also granted defendant’s motion for a new trial on all damages, economic and noneconomic, finding it was not possible to determine what amount of noneconomic damages the jury awarded because of the discrimination but not because of the constructive discharge. The court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial on plaintiff’s discrimination claims. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s orders.

 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