Lawyers for Wrongful Termination Due to Stroke Serving Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, and Ventura Counties
If you’ve suffered a stroke and subsequently faced wrongful job termination, you need a legal advocate who understands the complexities of both your medical condition and your legal rights. At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we concentrate on representing employees who have experienced wrongful dismissal due to disabilities stroke. Our experienced team is dedicated to serving clients across Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, and Ventura Counties, helping them seek justice and protect their livelihoods.
Understanding Stroke: Causes, Prognosis, and Recovery
A stroke occurs when the blood supply to part of the brain is interrupted or reduced, preventing brain tissue from getting the oxygen and nutrients it needs. This can lead to the death of brain cells within minutes. Strokes are medical emergencies that require immediate treatment. The faster a stroke is treated, the better the prognosis for recovery.
Causes of Stroke:
Ischemic Stroke: The most common type, caused by a blockage in an artery supplying blood to the brain.
Hemorrhagic Stroke: Caused by a burst blood vessel in the brain, leading to bleeding within or around the brain.
Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA): Often called a “mini-stroke,” it’s a temporary period of symptoms similar to those of a stroke, without lasting damage.
Prognosis and Recovery:
The prognosis after a stroke varies widely depending on the severity, the area of the brain affected, and the speed of medical intervention. Recovery can be a long and challenging process, involving physical therapy, speech therapy, and other rehabilitation efforts. While some individuals recover fully, others may experience long-term disabilities.
During recovery, returning to work may be possible for some, but others may need significant accommodations. Unfortunately, some employers may view the effects of a stroke as a liability and wrongfully terminate the employee rather than provide the necessary support. If you have faced wrongful discharge due to stroke, you have legal rights that need to be protected.
Your Rights Against Wrongful Termination Due to Stroke
In California, employees are protected under both state and federal laws against discrimination based on disability, including conditions resulting from a stroke. Employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who have experienced a stroke, such as modified duties, flexible schedules, or medical leave, to enable them to continue working.
However, some employers unlawfully terminate employees who have suffered a stroke, viewing them as unable to perform their job duties or as too costly to retain. This kind of behavior constitutes wrongful firing due to stroke and is a violation of your rights. At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we are committed to fighting for employees who have been unjustly fired due to stroke-related conditions.
Common Scenarios of Wrongful Termination Due to Stroke
Wrongful job termination due to stroke can occur in several ways, including:
Failure to Accommodate: An employee who has suffered a stroke requests reasonable accommodations, such as reduced hours or modified duties, to continue working. Instead of providing these accommodations, the employer wrongfully dismisses the employee, claiming they can no longer perform their job.
Perceived Disability: An employer may wrongfully discharge an employee based on assumptions about their ability to work after a stroke, without even attempting to accommodate their needs or assessing their actual capacity to perform the job.
Retaliation for Medical Leave: An employee takes medical leave to recover from a stroke, as permitted by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Upon returning to work, the employee is unjustly fired due to stroke-related health issues, with the employer citing fabricated reasons for termination.
These scenarios represent clear violations of your rights as an employee. If you have been subjected to unlawful termination due to stroke, it’s essential to consult with an experienced employment attorney who can help you navigate the legal process and pursue the compensation you deserve.
Why Choose Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C.?
When you’re facing the challenges of recovering from a stroke and dealing with wrongful dismissal due to stroke, you need a law firm that offers more than just legal expertise. At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we provide compassionate and personalized legal services tailored to your unique situation. Here’s why we’re the right choice for your case:
Talent and Skill: Our attorneys have extensive experience handling cases involving wrongful firing due to disabilities, with a deep understanding of both the legal and medical aspects of these cases.
Proven Success: We have a track record of successfully representing clients in wrongful termination cases, ensuring that they receive the compensation they are entitled to under the law. We have recovered millions of dollars for our clients.
Client-Centered Service: We understand the emotional and financial toll that wrongful termination can take, especially after a serious health event like a stroke. We are dedicated to providing attentive and supportive legal services to help you through this difficult time.
No Upfront Fees: We operate on a contingency fee basis, meaning you don’t pay unless we win your case. This allows you to focus on your recovery without the stress of legal fees.
Legal Remedies for Wrongful Termination Due to Stroke
If you have been wrongfully terminated due to stroke, you may be entitled to several forms of compensation, including:
Lost Wages: Compensation for the income you have lost as a result of your wrongful dismissal.
Emotional Distress: Damages for the emotional and psychological impact of your wrongful termination.
Punitive Damages: In cases where the employer’s actions were particularly egregious, punitive damages may be awarded to punish the employer and deter similar behavior.
Our attorneys at Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. will work tirelessly to build a strong case on your behalf, gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and advocating for your rights in negotiations or in court.
Contact Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. Today
If you’ve been the victim of unjust firing due to stroke, it’s crucial to act quickly. The sooner you reach out to an experienced employment attorney, the better your chances of achieving a favorable outcome. At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we offer a free initial consultation to discuss your case and explore your legal options. Serving Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, and Ventura Counties, Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. is here to stand by your side and fight for the justice you deserve. Contact us today to learn how we can help you take the next steps toward securing your future. Call us today at (818) 509-9975 or contact us online to schedule a complimentary case evaluation.
Areas Served
The litigation and trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. provide services throughout Southern California including but not limited to Adelanto, Agoura Hills, Alhambra, Aliso Viejo, Altadena, Anaheim, Apple Valley, Arcadia, Arleta, Atwater Village, Azuza, Bakersfield, Baldwin Park, Banning, Beaumont, Bell, Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Blythe, Boyle Heights, Brea, Brentwood, Buena Park, Burbank, Calabasas, Calimesa, Camarillo, Canoga Park, Canyon Lake, Carson, Cathedral City, Cerritos, Chatsworth, Chino Hills, Chino, Claremont, Coachella, Colton, Compton, Costa Mesa, Corona, Covina, Culver City, Cypress, Dana Point, Desert Hot Springs, Diamond Bar, Downey, Duarte, Eagle Rock, East Hollywood, East Los Angeles, Eastvale, Echo Park, El Monte, El Segundo, El Sereno, Encino, Fontana, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Gardena, Garden Grove, Glassell Park, Glendale, Glendora, Granada Hills, Hacienda Heights, Hawthorne, Hemet, Hesperia, Highland Park, Highland, Hollywood, Hollywood Hills, Huntington Beach, Huntington Park, Indian Wells, Indio, Inglewood, Irvine, Jurupa Valley, La Canada Flintridge, La-Crescenta Montrose, La Habra, La Mirada, La Palma, La Puente, La Quinta, La Verne, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lakewood, Lake Balboa, Lake Elsinore, Lake Forest, Lancaster, Lawndale, Lincoln Heights, Loma Linda, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Los Angeles, Los Feliz, Lynwood, Manhattan Beach, Mar Vista, Maywood, Menifee, Mission Hills, Mission Viejo, Monrovia, Montclair, Montebello, Monterey Park, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Newbury Park, Newhall, Newport Beach, Norco, North Hills, North Hollywood, Northridge, Norwalk, Ontario, Orange, Oxnard, Pacific Palisades, Pacoima, Palos Verdes, Palmdale, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Panorama City, Paramount, Pasadena, Perris, Pico Rivera, Placentia, Pomona, Porter Ranch, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Mirage, Rancho Santa Margarita, Redondo Beach, Reseda, Rialto, Riverside, Rosemead, Rowland Heights, San Bernardino, San Clemente, San Dimas, San Gabriel, San Fernando, San Jacinto, San Juan Capistrano, San Pedro, Santa Ana, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, Sawtelle, Seal Beach, Shadow Hills, Sherman Oaks, Silver Lake, Simi Valley, South El Monte, South Gate, South Pasadena, South Whittier, Stanton, Studio City, Sun Valley, Sunland, Sylmar, Tarzana, Temecula, Temple City, Thousand Oaks, Toluca Lake, Torrance, Tujunga, Tustin, Twentynine Palms, Upland, Valencia, Valley Glen, Valley Village, Van Nuys, Ventura, Victorville, Walnut, West Covina, West Hills, West Hollywood, West Puente Valley, Westchester, Westminster, Westwood, Whittier, Wildomar, Winnetka, Woodland Hills, Yorba Linda
Featured Wrongful Termination Due to Stroke Case
Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc., 188 Cal. App. 4th 297, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 (2010)
Timothy Sandell, the plaintiff, was a former vice president of sales and marketing at Taylor-Listug, Inc., a guitar manufacturing company. Sandell was 60 years old and had worked in the industry for many years, gaining significant experience. He suffered a stroke, which resulted in partial paralysis on his right side, requiring him to walk with a cane. After returning to work following his stroke, Sandell claimed that he faced discrimination based on his age and disability. The company terminated Sandell’s employment, citing poor performance as the reason. However, Sandell alleged that his termination was not due to performance issues but was instead motivated by age discrimination and his disability resulting from the stroke.
Sandell filed a lawsuit against Taylor-Listug, Inc., alleging wrongful termination in violation of FEHA, which prohibits discrimination based on age and disability. The company moved for summary judgment, arguing that Sandell had failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and even if he had, the company had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination—his alleged poor performance.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Taylor-Listug, Inc., finding that Sandell had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that his age or disability was a substantial motivating factor in his termination. Sandell appealed the decision.
The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that Sandell had indeed raised a triable issue of fact as to whether age discrimination was a substantial motivating factor in his termination. The court emphasized several key points:
Prima Facie Case of Discrimination
The court found that Sandell had established a prima facie case of age discrimination under FEHA. He was over 40 years old, was qualified for his position, and was replaced by a significantly younger person after his termination. The court noted that the timing of Sandell’s termination, shortly after his stroke and his return to work, could raise an inference of discrimination.
Pretext
The court determined that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the company’s stated reason for Sandell’s termination—poor performance—was a pretext for age discrimination. This included evidence that Sandell had received positive performance evaluations before his stroke and that there was no documentation of poor performance until shortly before his termination. Additionally, the court considered evidence that younger employees were treated more favorably and that ageist comments were made by company executives.
The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment in favor of Taylor-Listug, Inc. and remanded the case for further proceedings.