Westminster Employment Lawyers

The Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stands ready to fight for the rights of workers in Westminster dealing with discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or other illegal conduct in the workplace. The firm also stands ready to provide small businesses in Westminster 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 Westminster, California

Westminster is a city located in Orange County.  It is home to more than 90,000 residents.  It covers approximately ten square miles and encompasses the following zip codes: 92683, 92864, and 92685.  Westminster’s roots date back to the 1800s, when it was founded by Reverend Lemuel P. Webber as the second Presbyterian temperance colony in Orange County (after Anaheim). The colony was named after the Westminster Assembly of 1643, which prescribed the basic principles of the Presbyterian faith. The economy was established throughout the 19th century, when the completion of the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroads brought settlers from the east coast, along with immigrants from China, Japan, and Mexico. Many people were attracted to the region’s rich productive soils, and the area was eventually transformed from a “small quiet village” into an agricultural hub with some of the most productive dairying centers, celery fields, and sugar factories in the country. However, even with growing interest in the region, the population of Westminster was only 225 people by 1874.

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the town’s business economy started to take shape. The town’s first general store and schoolhouse were established to serve the growing community; the general store kicked-off Westminster’s first business district on Almond Avenue, which today is known as Westminster Boulevard. By the end of the 19th century, the town had a range of commercial services while maintaining its reputation as a premiere agricultural center. The first library was built in 1900 and in 1902 the first telephone line reached what would become the City of Westminster. To support the community’s growing economic interests, the town’s Chamber of Commerce was established and the “Plaza Association” was organized to develop Sigler Park, which still serves as a signature landmark and local destination in Westminster.

The suburban residential tracts developed in Westminster in the 1920s-1950s are still a prominent fixture of the community’s urban fabric as the majority of the City’s acres support residential uses. In 1924 the Midway City subdivision began construction, followed shortly by Barber City in 1927. During the 1920s, the world’s largest goldfish farm moved into the area where the Westminster Mall stands today. Despite the growth of the community in the 1920s, the Great Depression stifled growth for much of the 1930s. In addition to the economic strains of the Depression, natural disasters including a major earthquake in 1933 and a severe flood in 1938 held Westminster back from embracing the development the city experienced in its early years.

Despite its stagnant growth in the early 1900s, by the 1940s and 1950s, the nationwide war and post-war boom brought exponential population growth to most areas throughout Southern California, especially those communities with access to jobs near the ports and aeronautic facilities. Following the war, servicemen who were located in Southern California decided to stay for the warm climate, and many large housing tracts grew around the agricultural lands of Westminster. The City’s population nearly quadrupled during this time from 2,500 in 1942 to nearly 10,800 in 1956.

In 1957, proceedings began to form a municipality called Tri City, in a proposal to combine three communities into one: Westminster, Barber City, and Midway City. Before the vote, Midway City withdrew from the venture and remains unincorporated today. The proposal to incorporate Westminster and Barber City was approved by a vote of 1,096 to 1,008, and Westminster became California’s 337th city in 1957.

By 1963, the Orange County population had surpassed one million, as tourism, manufacturing and the service industries took over local economies once Disneyland opened its gates in 1955. During the 1960s, Westminster’s population exploded, more than doubling in a single decade from 25,000 at the beginning of the 1960s to 60,000 by 1970. As a result, the majority of the City’s residential neighborhoods were built during this time. Westminster continued to thrive throughout the 1960s and 1970s, especially after the Southland Freeway (I-405) system was completed and the Westminster Mall was constructed, the latter of which became a regional attraction that continues to be the City’s primary sales tax generator. As commerce and tourism continued to develop throughout the city and county, municipal construction projects in Westminster—including a new administration building, senior citizens facility, fire department buildings, and a renovation of the civic auditorium—demonstrated the prosperity of the time. By the end of the 1970s, very little vacant land remained in Westminster, and some of the community’s older buildings had already reached the end of their useful life and were redeveloped.

In the 1970s and 1980s a large number of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from conflict in their homeland settled in an area of Westminster and Garden Grove referred to as “Little Saigon.” This influx of new immigrants spurred the construction and development of a variety of Southeast Asian businesses, restaurants, and professional services, which establish a new commercial activity center in the city and supported the largest Vietnamese cultural enclave outside of Vietnam (some 500 businesses opened in the Bolsa Avenue area in the 1980s alone). Although several other Vietnamese enclaves have emerged throughout the United States (including in San Jose, Houston, and Chicago) Little Saigon in the Westminster/Garden Grove area is unofficially considered the Vietnamese “capital” of the United States, with a 2010 population of 36,000 Vietnamese Americans (the highest municipal concentration of Vietnamese Americans in the nation). On weekends, the number of people in Westminster triples, as Little Saigon regularly draws visitors from Los Angeles, San Diego, and even northern California.

Well-established by the 1990s as a multicultural community with deep roots in Western, Mexican, and Vietnamese histories, in 1996 Westminster was designated an “All-America City” by the National Civic League for civic accomplishments, made possible by the cooperative efforts of business, government, the volunteer sector, and other individuals. Westminster continues to support the needs of a diverse population today and is widely seen as a welcoming community, with many services and venues to serve its visitors and residents including a 420-seat theater at the Westminster Rose Center, a satellite campus of Coastline Community College, Sid Goldstein Freedom Park, and Westminster Mall.

The Best Westminster Employment Attorneys

In Westminster, finding the right labor lawyer isn’t always a straightforward task. The legal landscape in this vibrant city offers numerous options, but each law firm’s approach varies significantly. Not every employment attorney in Westminster is suited to handle every case. Some may opt for quick, low-value settlements, avoiding the complex, drawn-out battles that often lead to a more equitable resolution.

When you embark on an online search for “employment lawyer Westminster” or “wrongful termination attorney in Westminster,” you’re likely to be bombarded with paid advertisements from a multitude of lawyers eager to take the path of least resistance. This can make the selection process challenging, as it’s difficult to discern which attorney possesses the necessary expertise in employment law and a track record of success in litigation.

At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., our team of labor lawyers in Westminster approaches each case with an unwavering commitment to achieving the best possible outcome for our clients, regardless of the challenges it may entail. Our dedication to delivering quality legal representation leads us to limit our caseload to ensure every client receives personalized, first-class service.

We take immense pride in the strong relationships we build with our clients, relationships that often extend beyond the life of their cases. Our Westminster employment lawyers are passionate advocates, as evidenced by the excellent results we’ve consistently achieved. Don’t just take our word for it – explore the testimonials of our satisfied clients.

With strategically located offices in San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, and Riverside, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Westminster. Our employment lawyers are well-prepared to offer world-class services and top-notch representation to Westminster residents. When you require dedicated, experienced legal counsel to protect your rights and fight for your interests, trust the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., to be your unwavering ally. Call us today for a complimentary case evaluation, and let us stand by your side throughout your legal journey.

We Can Help Westminster Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

A former state employee filed suit against her former employer, the Department of Transportation, alleging disability discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) because she took medical leave to control her diabetic condition which was being aggravated by the stressful working conditions. The Superior Court, Sacramento County, No. 99AS02188, Joe S. Gray, J., entered summary judgment for the employer. Employee appealed. The Court of Appeal, Nicholson, J., held that: (1) employee’s complaint alleging disability discrimination under the FEHA could be amended to allege a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of the Moore–Brown–Roberti Family Rights Act (CFRA), and (2) the CFRA cause of action was timely in relating back to the filing of employee’s federal court complaint, which alleged disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the FEHA.  The opinion states in part as follows: “CFRA is a portion of FEHA that provides “protections to employees needing family leave or medical leave.” (Gibbs v. American Airlines, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1, 6, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 554.) “CFRA generally provides that it is unlawful for an employer to refuse an employee’s request for up to 12 weeks of ‘family care and medical leave’ in a year. (Gov.Code, § 12945.2, subd. (a).) An employer is also forbidden from discharging or discriminating against an employee who requests family leave or medical leave. (Gov.Code, § 12945.2, subd. (l).) ‘Family care and medical leave’ includes ‘[l]eave because of an employee’s own serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of that employee….’ (Gov.Code, § 12945.2, subd. (c)(3)(C).) ‘Serious health condition’ means ‘an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves either of the following: [¶] (A) Inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential **744 health care facility. [¶] (B) Continuing treatment or continuing supervision by a health care provider.’ (Gov.Code, § 12945.2, subd. (c)(8).)” (Gibbs v. American Airlines, Inc., supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 6, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 554.) As relevant here, subdivision (l)(1) of Government Code section 12945.2 provides: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to *261 refuse to hire, or to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, or discriminate against, any individual because of … [¶] (1) An individual’s exercise of the right to family care and medical leave provided by subdivision (a).” The administrative regulations promulgated under CFRA recognize the cause of action provided for by Government Code section 12945.2, subdivision (l)(1) as one for “retaliation.” (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7297.7.) No California court has yet articulated the elements of a cause of action for retaliation in violation of this provision of CFRA. (See Mora v. Chem–Tronics, Inc. (S.D.Cal.1998) 16 F.Supp.2d 1192, 1232.) However, several federal courts have articulated the elements of such a cause of action under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., the federal counterpart to CFRA. (See Pang v. Beverly Hospital, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 986, 993, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 643 [referring to FMLA as the “federal law counterpart” of CFRA].) To make out a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of FMLA, a plaintiff must show that “(1) he availed himself of a protected right under the FMLA; (2) he was adversely affected by an employment decision; [and] (3) there is a causal connection between the employee’s protected activity and the employer’s adverse employment action.” (Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp. (1st Cir.1998) 144 F.3d 151, 161; Morgan v. Hilti, Inc. (10th Cir.1997) 108 F.3d 1319, 1325; see also Sharpe v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. (E.D.N.C.1998) 19 F.Supp.2d 483, 488; Beno v. United Telephone Co. of Florida (M.D.Fla.1997) 969 F.Supp. 723, 725.) Guided by these cases under the analogous federal statute, we conclude the elements of a cause of action for retaliation in violation of CFRA under the circumstances of this case are as follows: (1) the defendant was an employer covered by CFRA; (2) the plaintiff was an employee eligible to take CFRA leave; (3) the plaintiff exercised her right to take leave for a qualifying CFRA purpose; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, fine, or suspension, because of her exercise of her right to CFRA leave. We shall address each of these elements in turn to determine whether Dudley’s complaint states, or could be amended to state, facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for retaliation in violation of CFRA. In doing so, we view the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to Dudley. (See Settimo Associates v. Environ Systems, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 842, 845, fn. 3, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 757.)  Dudley v. Dep’t of Transp., 90 Cal. App. 4th 255, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 739 (2001)

 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