What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
Applicant sought reconsideration of the Findings and Order dated February 26, 2026, which was denied by the WCJ as untimely and not fairly stating all material evidence pursuant to WCAB Rule 10945(a). The WCAB adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report and denied reconsideration.
This docket was decided more than once. Shown here is the latest released decision; we also hold September 5, 2023.
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.
Applicant failed to prove a prima facie case of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a or an actual violation by a preponderance of the evidence regarding his termination or disciplinary actions. The WCJ found the employer's witnesses credible and the disciplinary actions consistent with company policy, not discriminatory.
From the decision · page 12Additionally, the WCJ weighed the witnesses' testimony and found them to be credible in their assertions. Realistically, there was not much differentiation between the testimony of the employer from Applicant's testimony. We accord this credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor while testifying at trial. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318§ 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Thus, applicant failed to prove either a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of section 132a, or an actual violation of that section by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to his termination or disciplinary actions.