Westchester Employment Attorneys
The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the rights of the residents of Westchester, regardless of whether they are employees or employers. If your cause is just and involves employment law, give us a call to see how we can help.
Westchester is a neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles and the Westside Region of Los Angeles County, California. It is home to Los Angeles International Airport, Loyola Marymount University, Otis College of Art and Design, and Westchester Enriched Sciences Magnet Schools. Westchester is home to more than 48,000 residents. It covers approximately eleven square miles and encompasses the following zip codes: 90045. Westchester began as an agricultural area in the early 20th century. In the 1930s the area transitioned into a residential community resulting from the rapid development of the aerospace industry at LAX, known at the time as Mines Field. Approximately 50% of the local housing stock consists of single-family detached homes. Westchester is also home to a number business and commercial districts along its main arteries of Lincoln Boulevard, Sepulveda Boulevard and Manchester Avenue. The nearby Playa Vista community is a major tech and entertainment hub, hosting offices for companies like Google, YouTube, and Facebook. Westchester is part of the larger area known as Silicon Beach, which encompasses various tech and creative companies, start-ups, and innovation hubs in Los Angeles. It’s an emerging tech and business hub. The neighborhood is home to Loyola Marymount University (LMU), a private research university known for its strong academic programs and beautiful campus. With offices in Burbank the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Westchester. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Westchester.
The Best Employment Lawyer in Westchester
Westchester, a vibrant community, boasts an array of legal professionals to cater to its residents’ needs. However, amidst the digital age’s deluge of information, an online search for “employment lawyer Westchester” or “wrongful termination attorney Westchester” can inundate you with paid advertisements from lawyers spanning various locations. Navigating this sea of options to select the right attorney with the requisite skills and experience can be a daunting task, especially when your decision hinges solely on internet advertisements.
At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we transcend the noise of generic advertisements by offering a level of legal expertise underpinned by nearly two decades of experience. Each attorney within our firm has honed their skills to an exceptional degree. Our lawyers boast an impressive track record of success, consistently securing favorable outcomes for both employees and employers. What truly sets us apart is our unwavering commitment to prioritizing quality over quantity.
Unlike many firms that prioritize expanding their caseload, our core philosophy centers on delivering exceptional service on every case we undertake. We understand that true success lies in the satisfaction and well-being of our clients. That’s why we go above and beyond to provide personalized attention and dedicated legal support.
Our approach to legal representation isn’t based on flashy advertisements or empty promises. We take pride in the tangible results we’ve achieved over the years. With offices conveniently located mere minutes away from Westchester, we are strategically poised to offer residents legal representation of the highest caliber. When you require legal guidance in the intricate realm of employment law, you can rely on the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., to stand by your side, ensuring that your rights and interests are rigorously defended.
We Can Help Westchester Residents With:
Featured Employment Case
The Superior Court dismissed a complaint seeking damages for alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress and for alleged violation of statutes referring to right to equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, or services in business establishments. The Supreme Court issue an opinion which provided as follows: “This state has long recognized the right to recover damages for the intentional and unreasonable infliction of mental or emotional distress which results in foreseeable physical injury to plaintiff. (State Rubbish, etc., Assn. v. Siliznoff, Supra, 38 Cal.2d 330, 336—337, 240 P.2d 282; Vargas v. Ruggiero, 197 Cal.App.2d 709, 717—718, 17 Cal.Rptr. 568; Richardson v. Pridmore, 97 Cal.App.2d 124, 130, 217 P.2d 113; Bowden v. Spiegel, Inc., 96 Cal.App.2d 793, 794—795, 216 P.2d 571; Emden v. Vitz, 88 Cal.App.2d 313, 316—319, 198 P.2d 696; see Rest.2d Torts, s 312.) Plaintiff’s allegations that defendants intentionally inflicted emotional *498 distress for the purpose of causing plaintiff to suffer emotional and physical harm, and that plaintiff did suffer physical illness, shock, nausea and insomnia as a result thereof, meet the requirements of the foregoing authorities. The physical consequences of shock or other disturbance to the nervous system are sufficient to satisfy the requirement that plaintiff has suffered physical injury from defendants’ conduct. (Emden v. Vitz, Supra, 88 Cal.App.2d 313, 316—317, 198 P.2d 696; see Vanoni v. Western Airlines, Supra, 247 Cal.App.2d 793, 796—797, 56 Cal.Rptr. 115.) Moreover, the courts of this state have also acknowledged the right to recover damages for emotional distress alone, without consequent physical injuries, in cases involving extreme and outrageous intentional invasions of one’s mental and emotional tranquility. (State Rubbish, etc., Assn. v. Siliznoff, Supra, 38 Cal.2d 330, 337—338, 240 P.2d 282; Cornblith v. First Maintenance Supply Co., 268 Cal.App.2d 564, 74 Cal.Rptr. 216; Agostini v. Strycula, 231 Cal.App.2d 804, 808, 42 Cal.Rptr. 314; Perati v. Atkinson, 213 Cal.App.2d 472, 474, 28 Cal.Rptr. 898; see Rest.2d Torts, s 46.) Plaintiff has alleged facts and circumstances which reasonably could lead the trier of fact to conclude that defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous, having a severe and traumatic effect upon plaintiff’s emotional tranquility. Thus, according to plaintiff, defendants, standing in a position or relation of authority over plaintiff,2 aware of his particular susceptibility to emotional distress, and for the ***91 **219 purpose of causing plaintiff to suffer such distress, intentionally humiliated plaintiff, insulted his race, ignored his union status, and terminated his employment, all *499 without just cause or provocation. Although it may be that mere insulting language, without more, ordinarily would not constitute extreme outrage, the aggravated circumstances alleged by plaintiff seem sufficient to uphold his complaint as against defendants’ general demurrer. ‘Where reasonable men may differ, it is for the jury, subject to the control of the court, to determine whether, in the particular case, the conduct has been sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability.’ (Rest.2d Torts, s 46, com; accord, Halio v. Lurie (1961) 15 A.D.2d 62, 222 N.Y.S.2d 759, 764; Wallace v. Shoreham Hotel Corporation (D.C.Mun.App.1946) 49 A.2d 81, 83.) The multitude of cases upholding on various theories complaints alleging similar circumstances strongly indicates at least that plaintiff has pleaded a situation in which reasonable men may differ regarding defendants’ liability. That being so, the order of dismissal should be reversed as to plaintiff’s first cause of action.
Millions of Dollars Recovered For Our Clients
Check Out Our Case Results