Victorville Employment Attorneys
Our battle hardened employment lawyers are prepared to enforce and protect the rights of Victorville residents.
Victorville is city located in San Bernardino County. It is home to roughly 135,000 residents. Victorville lies within zip codes 92392 through 92395. Victorville, a general law city, officially became incorporated on September 21, 1962, with an initial population of around 8,110 and a land area of 9.7 square miles. Since then, the city has seen remarkable growth, currently estimating a population of 125,000 and covering 74.16 square miles. The history of Victorville predates its incorporation, dating back over a century when the first European settlers arrived. Around 1885, the community was initially named Victor, in honor of Jacob Nash Victor, a construction superintendent for the California Southern Railroad (Santa Fe Railroad). Victorville’s establishment was linked to the construction of the original railroad station, located approximately one mile northwest of the Mojave River narrows. On January 18, 1886, the town’s plan was created, outlining the grid pattern of the original town. This subdivision encompassed about 200 acres, including property from “A” Street through “G” Street and First Street through Eleventh Street. The area’s abundant water supply and fertile lands led to agricultural development shortly after the railroad depot’s establishment. In the early 1900s, significant deposits of limestone and granite were discovered, giving rise to the cement manufacturing industry, which became a cornerstone of the Victor Valley’s economy. In 1901, the United States Post Office changed the community’s name from “Victor” to “Victorville” to eliminate confusion with Victor, Colorado. In 1926, U.S. Route 66 was established, connecting Chicago, Illinois, to California, and Victorville played a pivotal role as a transportation corridor along this historic highway. Seventh Street and “D” Street were part of this iconic route. During World War II, construction began on Victorville Army Airfield on July 23, 1941, later renamed George Air Force Base. The base was completed on May 18, 1943, and played a significant role in supporting Tactical Fighter Wings of the Tactical Air Command, primarily operating the F-4 Phantom. It employed around 6,000 civilian and military personnel. On January 5, 1989, George Air Force Base was slated for closure under the Base Closure and Realignment Act. The base was officially deactivated on December 15, 1992. Subsequently, the former military base was annexed into the City on July 21, 1993, and rebranded as the Southern California Logistics Airport.
How Victorville Residents Can Find The Best Employment Lawyer
There are many ways that Victorville residents can look for an attorney. Regardless of the approach you take, the most important thing to do is confirm that the potential attorney has the experience, talent, and track record to deliver best results.
We Can Help Victorville Residents With:
Featured Employment Case
Casenas v. Fujisawa USA, Inc., 58 Cal. App. 4th 101, 67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 827 (1997)
Former employee brought constructive discharge action against employer. The Superior Court, Orange County, No. 626457, C. Robert Jameson, J., granted employer’s summary judgment motion, and employee appealed. The Court of Appeal, Sonenshine, J., held that: (1) employee failed to demonstrate intolerable conditions; (2) no reasonable person faced with allegedly intolerable conditions of employment employee faced would have believed she had no reasonable alternative except to quit; and (3) employer neither deliberately created intolerable working conditions nor knowingly permitted them to exist. In relevant part the opinion states as follows: “The elements of constructive discharge are set forth by our Supreme Court in Turner v. Anheuser–Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022, a case we find absolutely dispositive of Casenas’ appeal and thus discuss in some detail. Turner worked for a brewery for six years, voluntarily resigned in 1981, and then returned in early 1984, to work at the wholesale operations division *113 as a “ ‘branch off-premises coordinator’ in the sales department.” (Turner v. Anheuser–Busch, Inc., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1243, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) In May 1985, he was “reassigned to the position of ‘assistant supervisor route sales.’ ” (Ibid.) His salary and responsibility level were unchanged. For four years, with only one exception, he “received ‘good’ ratings on written performance evaluations.” (Ibid.) But in December 1988, his rating was “ ‘needs improvement.’ ” (Id. at pp. 1243–1244, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) He met with supervisors who advised him his “job performance had deteriorated.” (Id. at p. 1244, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) Turner disagreed with both the appraisal and his supervisors’ handling of the matter. He resigned and sued, alleging, in pertinent part, constructive wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The Turner court, reversing the Court of Appeal, found the trial court had properly granted the employer summary judgment. Initially, it noted, “Actual discharge carries significant legal consequences for employers, including possible liability for wrongful discharge. In an attempt to avoid liability, an employer may refrain from actually firing an employee, preferring instead to engage in conduct causing him or her to quit. The doctrine of constructive discharge addresses such employer-attempted ‘end runs’ around wrongful discharge and other claims requiring employer-initiated terminations of employment.” (Turner v. Anheuser–Busch, Inc., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1244, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) The court explained, “Constructive discharge occurs 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. As a result, a constructive discharge is legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 1244–1245, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) The Turner court then delineated “[t]hree areas of inquiry” to test whether a constructive discharge claim can be proved. (Turner v. Anheuser–Busch, Inc., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1245, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) First, there must be intolerable conditions: “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.” (Id. at p. 1246, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) In this respect, an employer is not obligated to provide a stress-free environment: “ ‘ “An employee is protected *114 from … unreasonably harsh conditions, in excess of those faced by his [or her] co-workers.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 1247, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) “[A]dverse working conditions must be unusually ‘aggravated’ or amount to a ‘continuous pattern’ before the situation will be deemed intolerable.” (Turner v. Anheuser–Busch, Inc., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1247, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022, fn. omitted.) “ ‘[T]he mere failure to promote the plaintiff, even if unlawfully discriminatory, will not support a finding of constructive discharge…. Nor is it sufficient to show only that the employee received a poor performance rating.’… ‘Further, demotion of job level, even when accompanied by reduction in pay, does not constitute constructive discharge.’ ” (Id. at p. 1247, fn. 4, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022, citations omitted.) The second inquiry under the Turner test applies an objective standard, asking “ ‘whether a reasonable person faced with the allegedly intolerable employer actions or **836 conditions of employment would have no reasonable alternative except to quit.’ [Citations.]” (Turner v. Anheuser–Busch, Inc., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1248, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) The final inquiry focuses on the employer: “[T]he 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.” (Turner v. Anheuser–Busch, Inc., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1248, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022, original italics.) Employer coercion of a resignation against the employee’s will cannot be proved by evidence of the employer’s constructive knowledge of an intolerable situation. Rather, “the employer must either deliberately create the intolerable working conditions that trigger the resignation or, at a minimum, must know about them and fail to remedy the situation in order to force the employee to resign.” (Id. at pp. 1249–1250, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) This standard, requiring employees to notify someone in authority about the intolerable working conditions, “permit [s] employers unaware of any wrongdoing to correct a potentially destructive situation” (id. at p. 1250, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022), and “discourages employer inaction.” (Ibid.) The Turner court summarized its holding: “In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove … that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee’s resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable *115 person in the employee’s position would be compelled to resign.” (Turner v. Anheuser–Busch, Inc., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 1251, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 223, 876 P.2d 1022.) Casenas’ facts do not survive the Turner test.”
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results