West Hollywood Employment Attorneys

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

West Hollywood, California

West Hollywood is a city in central Los Angeles which is surrounded completely by the City of Los Angeles.  Although West Hollywood covers less than two square miles, it is home to more than 35,000 residents.  It covers approximately nine square miles.  Its zip code is 90046. For many decades, the area that is now the city of West Hollywood was an unincorporated area governed by the County of Los Angeles. In 1984 the area was incorporated and became the City of West Hollywood. The Sunset Strip, a section of Sunset Boulevard running through West Hollywood, is famous for its nightlife, music venues, and historic rock and roll history. It has been a hub for music and entertainment since the 1960s. The city has several historic landmarks, including the Pacific Design Center’s blue and green buildings, known locally as the “Blue Whale” and the “Green Blades,” and the Schindler House, an iconic modernist architectural gem. The city offers a diverse and eclectic dining scene, with a wide range of restaurants, cafes, and eateries. It’s known for its culinary creativity and international cuisine. The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is headquartered in Los Angeles which is minutes away from West Hollywood.  Thus, our employment lawyers stand ready to serve employees and employers in West Hollywood with all their employment law needs.

The Best Employment Lawyers in West Hollywood

West Hollywood’s central location offers its residents an array of options when it comes to legal services. Many lawyers and law firms extend their services to West Hollywood residents, with some willing to go to great lengths to make their pitch. When employers and employees in West Hollywood confront significant legal issues, especially in the realm of employment law, the challenge often lies in selecting the right attorney for their needs. This quest can be further complicated by the constant barrage of attention-grabbing radio ads and billboard posters seen on buses, billboards, and street benches. Although most people turn to online searches for terms like “West Hollywood employment lawyer” or “wrongful termination attorney in West Hollywood,” such searches may yield results crowded with paid advertisements from billboard lawyers. While billboard lawyers may be suitable for specific cases, others demand top-tier representation from experienced legal counsel. Each attorney at the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., brings nearly two decades of experience to the table. Our legal team has consistently delivered favorable results for both employers and employees. We prioritize quality over quantity and prefer to spend our time in the courtroom advocating for our clients’ rights rather than recording catchy radio ads. We invite you to request client references to validate our competence, and you can also explore our online reviews. With offices located just minutes away from West Hollywood, we are poised to provide residents with the highest-caliber legal representation.

We Can Help West Hollywood Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

An employee who was fired from his position as a pilot following a job review brought tort suit against employer and coworkers. The wrongful discharge claim against the employer was dismissed after removal to federal court, and the tort claims against coworkers were remanded. The Superior Court, San Diego County, No. 686819, Judith McConnell, J., sustained some coworkers’ demurrers to complaint without leave to amend and entered summary judgment in favor of other coworkers. The mployee appealed. The Court of Appeal, McIntyre, J., held that: (1) employee could not hold coworkers individually liable for their conduct related to personnel action against him, absent statutory exception, and (2) as right to sue for libel was governed by statute, claim for libel was not barred.  The Court’s opinion included the following language regarding coworker liability: We note that the issue at hand does not fall within the specific purview of Foley. Foley limited tort claims arising out of the termination of an employment relationship, holding that an employee has an actionable claim only where the employer’s conduct violates public policy. (See, e.g., Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 669–670, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373; Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 874, 824 P.2d 680.) Indeed, to support a tort action for wrongful discharge, “the policy in question must involve a matter that affects society at large rather than a purely personal or proprietary interest of the plaintiff or employer,” and must be “fundamental” and “substantial,” as well as “well established” at the time of the discharge. (Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, 889, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 888, 941 P.2d 1157, quoting Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., supra, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 669–670, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373.) However, these concerns pertain to employer liability to an employee, not to liability of coemployees. (See Jacobs v. Universal Development Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 692, 704, 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 446 [only an employer can be liable for tortious discharge].)  Thus, we have found little analysis of coworker liability under the principles of Foley and its progeny. However, we recognize the deleterious effects on business if disciplined employees may avoid Foley ‘s bar by simply alleging malice and suing coemployees **16 for damages on alternative *345 tort theories, when the identical personnel action cannot give rise to tort damages against the employer. Indeed, Jensen v. Hewlett–Packard Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 958, 965, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 83, observes that, under Foley, the proper remedy against an employer for alleged falsified performance reviews is an action in contract. Hunter v. Up–Right, Inc., supra, 6 Cal.4th at page 1185, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 8, 864 P.2d 88, expressly embraces the proposition that false statements cannot serve as a predicate for tort damages otherwise unavailable under Foley. Here, all Sheppard’s claims arise from the termination, which he alleges was caused by a conspiracy of false reporting by coemployees. There is no suggestion in the record of any violation of public policy under Foley. To the contrary, the employee evaluation and reporting system which led to Sheppard’s termination from Southwest would appear to advance both corporate and public interests in safety. (49 U.S.C. § 44701(d).) Allowing coworkers to suffer liability would be anomalous under such circumstances. The doctrine of respondeat superior also illustrates the inappropriateness of imposing liability on coworkers who participate in personnel actions, rather than on the employer. We start with the premise that personnel actions are a sine qua non of any business operation: “In order to properly manage its business, every employer must on occasion review, criticize, demote, transfer and discipline employees … [yet e]mployees may consider any such adverse action to be improper and outrageous.” (Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 148, 160, 233 Cal.Rptr. 308, 729 P.2d 743.) With this in mind, it is axiomatic that respondeat superior allocates risks based on policy, rather than on fault, and arises from “a deeply rooted sentiment” that it would be “unjust for an enterprise to disclaim responsibility for injuries occurring in the course of its characteristic activities.” (Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 208, 285 Cal.Rptr. 99, 814 P.2d 1341.) Indeed, the California Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the central justification for respondeat superior liability: “losses fairly attributable to an enterprise—those which foreseeably result from the conduct of the enterprise—should be allocated to the enterprise as a cost of doing business.” (Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12 Cal.4th 291, 299, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 510, 907 P.2d 358, quoting Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 1004, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 478, 906 P.2d 440.) Based on a similar rationale, the Supreme Court recently held that individual supervisory employees cannot be personally liable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov.Code, § 12900 et seq.) or for discharge in violation of public policy for discrimination relating to personnel management decisions. *346 (Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 499, 957 P.2d 1333.) There, the court stated: “We do not decide merely whether individuals should be held liable for their wrongdoing, but whether all supervisors should be subjected to the ever-present threat of a lawsuit each time they make a personnel decision. Litigation is expensive for the innocent as well as the wrongdoer.” (18 Cal.4th at p. 663, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 499, 957 P.2d 1333.) It concluded that in limiting the threat of lawsuit to the employer, a balance was being struck “between the goals of eliminating discrimination in the workplace and minimizing the debilitating burden of litigation on individuals.” (Ibid.) Such a balance must also be achieved in the employment arena outside the context of FEHA, and for all employees, whether or not they are supervisors. Personnel actions are made for the benefit of the enterprise—the employer, and it is the employer, not the individual employees, that must bear the risks and responsibilities attendant to these actions. Naturally, personnel actions are made with the input of employees, both as part of their official duties and otherwise. **17 Without such input, the employer would be making decisions and taking action in a vacuum, and indeed, effective management and operation of an enterprise to a significant extent depends upon the free exchange of information, concerns, and ideas of all employees. This can hardly occur when the individual employees face the prospect of being sued for this conduct. Some of the information exchanged will be incorrect, even maliciously so. Thus, it will behoove the employer to be thorough in its investigation and analysis relating to personnel actions, not only to avoid civil liability (see Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall Internat., Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 93, 107, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 900, 948 P.2d 412 [employer must conduct good faith investigation regarding basis for discharging employee] ) and costly grievance procedures, but to retain and reward good employees and to root out those who are dishonest or who act with ulterior motives which undermine the effective operation of the company.

Sheppard v. Freeman, 67 Cal. App. 4th 339, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 13 (1998)

 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