Walnut Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to fight for the rights of workers in Walnut dealing with discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace. The firm also stands ready to provide small businesses in Walnut economical and efficient solutions to problems involving employment law.  Our substantial experience in approaching employment disputes from both sides gives us rare insight into the mindset of the opponent, which truly goes a long way to achieving the best possible outcome.

About Walnut, California

Walnut is a city located in the San Gabriel Valley and is home to more than 30,000 residents.  It covers approximately nine square miles and encompasses the following zip codes: 91724, 91788, 91789, 91792.

The history of Walnut dates back to the Indians who were of Shoshone origin. They were called Gabrielino Indians by the Spaniards because they lived in an area controlled by the San Gabriel Mission. Walnut was primarily used for the grazing of cattle and sheep by the Mission.

Spaniards who arrived here in the early 1800s introduced the concept of ranchos and started agricultural development and the creation of home sites. The first land grants in the Walnut area were those of the Rancho De San Jose granted to Don Ricardo Vejar and Don Ygnacio Palomares; the Rancho De Los Nogales, issued to Jose De La Cruz Linares; and Rancho La Puente, issued to John Rowland and William Workman in 1842 which consisted of a total of 48,790.5 acres. The City of Walnut was included as part of one of the 24 ranchos belonging to the San Gabriel Mission

In 1868, John Rowland and William Workman divided Rancho La Puente, leaving Rowland the eastern half and Workman the western half. Rowland’s land included the western portion of Walnut. The land was used for raising cattle and growing wheat, grapes, and fruit trees.

Many years earlier in 1840, Mexican Governor Juan Alvardo awarded a man named Jose De La Cruz Linares a land grant of 4,340 acres, land which included a portion of Walnut. This land was known as Rancho De Nogales, or Ranch of the Walnut Trees. In 1847, seven years after the unfortunate death of Linares, the rancho was acquired by Ricardo Vejar. This land included the eastern portion of Walnut and became part of Rancho San Jose. The City of Walnut originally obtained its name from the Rancho De Los Nogales land grant, Nogales being the Spanish word for walnut.

In order to preserve part of our community’s history, the City of Walnut’s Bicentennial Commission selected the construction of Lemon Creek Park and the restoration of the William R. Rowland Adobe Redwood Ranch House as Walnut’s bicentennial project. In 1871, the Lemon Creek Park area became the property of Sheriff William Rowland, who inherited the 29,000 acre ranch from his father, John Rowland. The modest structure served as the home of Mr. Meridith, ranch foreman for William Rowland. It was built in 1883. The adobe redwood ranch house is one of the few remaining original ranch style redwood and adobe structures in the area. On October 1, 1975, the State Landmark Committee placed the W.R. Rowland ranch house in the National Registry of Historical Places.

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. has offices in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, and Riverside, all of which are minutes away from Walnut.  Thus, our lawyers stand ready to serve employees and employers in Walnut with all their employment law needs.

The Best Walnut Employment Attorneys

Finding the right labor lawyer in Walnut can be a challenging endeavor. The legal landscape is filled with numerous law firms, each approaching cases in their unique way. Not every employment attorney in Walnut is a suitable fit for every legal matter. Some lawyers may prioritize quick and straightforward low-value settlements over taking on a lengthy and complex fight that could lead to a resolution that fully reflects your rights and interests.

When you initiate an internet search for “Walnut employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in Walnut,” the results are often inundated with paid advertisements from countless lawyers, all vying for your attention. It’s challenging to discern which attorney possesses the skills and experience necessary to handle your specific employment law case effectively. The superficial information provided in these advertisements can make it difficult to determine who truly excels in this field.

This is where the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., distinguishes itself. Our dedicated team of labor lawyers in Walnut is committed to achieving the best possible outcome for each client, regardless of the complexity or size of the legal battle it may require. Our approach prioritizes the delivery of quality legal services in every case we take on. We recognize that every client, whether an employee seeking justice for workplace violations or an employer facing employment disputes, deserves nothing less than the highest level of personal attention, dedication, and expertise.

At the Akopyan Law Firm, we take immense pride in the first-class personal service we provide to our clients. However, we understand that trust is earned through action, not just words. We encourage you not to take our word for it alone. Instead, we invite you to explore the feedback and testimonials from our satisfied clients. These testimonials reflect not only our commitment to excellence but also our steadfast dedication to achieving outstanding results for our clients.

Our relationships with our clients often extend far beyond the resolution of their cases. We genuinely care about your well-being and understand that the impact of legal matters can transcend the life of the case. Our Walnut employment lawyers approach every case with unmatched passion and dedication, as affirmed by the excellent results we have consistently achieved.

If you are in search of employment lawyers in Walnut, we invite you to call us today for a complimentary case evaluation. It’s our opportunity to get to know you, understand your unique situation, and offer you legal guidance that reflects our commitment to achieving the best possible outcome for your employment law case.

We Can Help Walnut Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

Kelecheva v. Multivision Cable T.V. Corp., 18 Cal. App. 4th 521, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 453 (1993), as modified on denial of reh’g (Sept. 29, 1993)

A former supervisor brought suit against the employer for wrongful termination, breach of implied employment contract, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Superior Court dismissed the employee’s causes of action upon summary judgment based on the determination that claims were within exclusive jurisdiction of National Labor Relations Board under Garmon federal preemption doctrine. The supervisor appealed. The Court of Appeal held that: (1) the tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, based on employer’s alleged discharge of supervisor for failure to engage in antiunion activities, was preempted under Garmon doctrine; (2) neither breach of implied employment contract nor breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims were preempted; and (3) material issues of fact precluded summary judgment on contract claims.  The opinion explained the preemption issue as follows: California courts have long recognized a cause of action sounding in tort for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 170, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330.) The California Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed its commitment to this principle (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (hereafter Foley ) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 665–667, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373), but has limited it to include only those claims of wrongful discharge which allegedly violate a fundamental public policy embodied in constitutional or statutory provisions. (Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1095, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680.) Apparently, plaintiff’s first cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of federal labor statutes is an attempt to state such a claim. We must decide, however, whether plaintiff’s public policy claim is subject to Garmon preemption and, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the California courts. In Garmon, the United States Supreme Court established “general guidelines” for determining the permissible scope of state regulation of activity touching upon labor-management relations, and held that when an activity is arguably prohibited or protected by section 7 or section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act as amended (NLRA) (29 U.S.C. § 151 et. seq.), the state courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the NLRB in order to avoid state interference with national labor policy. (359 U.S. at p. 245, 79 S.Ct. at p. 779.) More recently, the Court has refined its preemption analysis and has held that where the alleged conduct falls within the “arguably prohibited” prong of the Garmon preemption test, *528 the critical inquiry is “whether the controversy presented to the state court is identical to … or different from … that which could have been, but was not, presented to the Labor Board.” (Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters (1978) 436 U.S. 180, 197, 98 S.Ct. 1745, 1757, 56 L.Ed.2d 209.) A careful review of the record reveals that plaintiff’s first cause of action is subject to Garmon preemption.

 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