Westwood Employment Attorneys

The trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. stand ready to fight for the rights of the residents of Westwood, 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.

Westwood, California

Westwood is a commercial and residential neighborhood in the northern central portion of the Westside region of Los Angeles, California. Westwood’s population exceeds 50,000.  Westwood covers almost four square miles and encompasses the following zip code: 96137. It is the home of the University of California, Los Angeles. Bordering the campus on the south is Westwood Village, a major regional district for shopping, dining, movie theaters, and other entertainment. Wilshire Boulevard through Westwood is a major corridor of condominium towers, on the eastern end and of office towers, on the western end. Westwood also has residential areas of multifamily and single-family housing, including exclusive Holmby Hills. The neighborhood was developed starting in 1919, and UCLA opened in 1929, while Westwood Village was built up starting in 1929 through the 1930s. With offices in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, and Riverside, the Akopyan Law Firm A.P.C. is just minutes away from Westwood. Our employment lawyers stand ready to provide world-class services and top-notch representation to the residents of Westwood.

Seeking The Best Employment Lawyer in Westwood

In the thriving community of Westwood, residents have a plethora of options when it comes to legal representation. A simple online search for “employment lawyer Westwood” or “wrongful termination attorney Westwood” can inundate you with paid advertisements from employment lawyers near and far. Choosing the right attorney, one with the requisite skill and experience, can be a daunting task when your decision is based solely on a paid internet advertisement. It’s challenging for individuals to determine if a particular attorney is truly well-versed in employment law and possesses the necessary experience to handle complex employment trials and litigation when all they have to rely on is an advertisement. In such a critical matter, you need confidence that your legal counsel is both knowledgeable and capable. At the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., each of our attorneys brings almost two decades of experience to the table. Our track record of success spans both sides of employment disputes, representing both employees and employers. Our unwavering commitment to quality over quantity ensures that every client receives the personalized attention they deserve. With offices located just minutes away from Westwood, we’re poised and prepared to provide legal representation of the highest caliber to Westwood residents. When you require an attorney who can navigate the complexities of employment law with confidence and expertise, trust the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., to be your dedicated ally. Don’t settle for uncertain choices based solely on advertisements – choose a legal partner with a proven track record.

We Can Help Westwood Residents With:

Featured Employment Case

A former employee sued his former employer, alleging age discrimination and retaliation in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), interference with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), breach of an implied-in-fact employment contract, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and violation of the California Unfair Practices Act (CUPA). The United States District Court for the Central District of California, R. Gary Klausner, J., granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, and the employee appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: 1 district court correctly declined to recognize the existence of an implied contract of employment; 2 genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether employer’s asserted reason for terminating employee was a pretext for age discrimination or retaliation; and 3 the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting scheme should not have been applied to employee’s FMLA and CFRA claims.  In part this unpublished opinion stated as follows: The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Dollar on Wood’s breach of implied-in-fact contract claim because Wood signed an express agreement acknowledging that he was an at-will employee. Although a contractual understanding between the parties may overcome the statutory presumption of at-will employment, see *622 Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089, 1101 (2000), courts will not infer an employment contract that varies the terms of an express agreement signed by an employee. See id. at 1103 n. 10 (noting that “most cases … have held that an at-will provision in an express written agreement, signed by the employee, cannot be overcome by proof of an implied contrary understanding”); Tomlinson v. Qualcomm, Inc., 97 Cal.App.4th 934, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 829 (Cal.Ct.App.2002). Because Wood signed an agreement acknowledging that his employment was at will, the district court correctly declined to recognize the existence of a contrary implied contract. The district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Dollar on Wood’s age discrimination claim. Dollar’s document setting forth its lay-off procedures made no mention of lay-offs of full-time employees. Further, John Frankenberger, the Dollar manager who selected LAX employees for lay-offs, testified that he did not include Wood on his initial lay-off list because Wood did not fit the criteria, “the two biggest” of which were people with the least seniority and part-time individuals. Moreover, Frankenberger added Wood, the sole manager laid off from LAX, to the lay-off list only after Mike Souza instructed him to do so. This evidence, along with the evidence from Wood’s prima facie case, creates a triable issue of fact as to whether Dollar’s asserted reason for terminating Wood was a pretext for age discrimination. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (holding that a plaintiff’s prima facie case, combined with evidence that defendant’s proffered reason is unworthy of belief, may permit a fact finder to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated); Porter v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections, 383 F.3d 1018, 1031 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that deviations from protocols and irregularities in procedures support an inference of pretext sufficient to overcome summary judgment). In concluding otherwise, the district court improperly weighed the evidence and resolved disputes over material facts in Dollar’s favor. See T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that on summary judgment “the judge does not weigh conflicting evidence with respect to a disputed material fact” and instead “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party”). At the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff’s burden is not high. Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir.1994). He need only show that “a rational trier of fact could, on all the evidence, find that the employer’s action was taken for impermissibly discriminatory reasons.” Id. Wood has met this burden. We therefore reverse and remand Wood’s age discrimination claim for a trial on the merits.

Wood v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 128 F. App’x 620 (9th Cir. 2005)

 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