ADJ10448584 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

The Findings of Fact issued on June 22, 2021, are affirmed, denying the petition for unlawful discrimination under Labor Code section 132a.

Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact issued on June 22, 2021, wherein the WCJ found that defendant did not violate Labor Code section 132a.

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Discrimination under Labor Code §132aDefendant prevailed

The defendant's stated business reason for not returning the applicant to work was credible and reasonable, supported by evidence that the company had no HVAC work available and the applicant was the only certified HVAC employee. Therefore, the defendant did not violate Labor Code section 132a.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant was released to return to work on October 19, 2015, with no restrictions by Dr. Gregory Yoshida.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This established the applicant's legal right to return to work, a prerequisite for a prima facie claim under section 132a.

The rules the panel named

Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.

Labor Code section 132a

Labor Code section 132a prohibits discrimination against workers injured in the course and scope of their employment.

The Board applied section 132a to evaluate the applicant's claim of unlawful discrimination by the employer.

From the decision · page 5DISCUSSION We observe that under section 132a, "[i]t is the declared policy of this state that there should not be discrimination against workers who are injured in the course and scope of their employment." Section 132a protects an employee from retaliation or discrimination by an employer because of an exercise of workers' compensation rights. (City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 944] (Moorpark); Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 658 [43 Cal.Comp.Cases 1205]; Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Lauher) (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1281, 1298-1299 [68 Cal.Comp.Cases 831]; Smith v. Workers' Comp Appeals Bd. (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1104, 1109 [49 Cal.Comp.Cases 212] (Smith); see Usher v. American Airlines, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1526 [58 Cal.Comp.Cases 813].) Section 132a provides in pertinent part:

Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 658

An employer's actions must be necessitated by the realities of doing business to rebut a prima facie case of discrimination under section 132a.

The employer's stated business reasons were found reasonable and credible, thus rebutting the prima facie case of discrimination.

From the decision · page 8When an employee establishes a prima facie case, the defendant still retains the right to present evidence to rebut that case. (See § 5705; Judson, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 667.) In rebuttal, the employer must show that its actions were "...necessitated by `the realities of doing business.'" (Judson, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 667; Smith, supra, 152 Cal.App.3d at p. 110.) The employer's stated business reasons must be reasonable under the facts of the case. (Barns, supra, 216 Cal.App.3d at pp. 534-535.) Thus, evidence produced by an employee in the prima facie case, and the related inferences raised by such evidence, may support a finding of retaliation or

ADJ10448584 · November 23, 2021

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

The facts that decided it

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page