ADJ12248957 — California WCAB decision

What the panel ordered

WCJ's Findings of Fact of April 23, 2021 rescinded; case returned to trial level for further development and new decision.

Petition for Reconsideration granted; WCJ's Findings of Fact rescinded; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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.

Jurisdiction / venueApplicant prevailed

The WCJ failed to properly apply the good faith personnel action defense and must make specific findings on the Rolda factors upon remand.

From the decision · page 10In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ opined, in one sentence, that applicant's interactions with his superiors regarding compliance with company dress code "appeared to be a good faith personnel action[.]" (Opinion on Decision, p. 5.) We can assume that, in so stating, the WCJ was

Jurisdiction / venueApplicant prevailed

The WCJ applied the incorrect post-termination defense statute to the psychiatric claim, warranting rescission and remand for proper analysis under section 3208.3(e).

The facts that decided it

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

The WCJ failed to properly apply the good faith personnel action defense and did not make specific findings on the Rolda factors.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Proper application of this defense requires specific findings and medical evidence, necessitating remand for further proceedings.

From the decision · page 10In the Opinion on Decision, the WCJ opined, in one sentence, that applicant's interactions with his superiors regarding compliance with company dress code "appeared to be a good faith personnel action[.]" (Opinion on Decision, p. 5.) We can assume that, in so stating, the WCJ was

The WCJ applied the incorrect post-termination defense statute (section 3600(a)(10) instead of section 3208.3(e)) to the psychiatric claim.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This legal error required rescission of the WCJ's Findings and remand for proper legal analysis under the correct statute.

From the decision · page 8On April 23, 2021, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact disputed herein, finding that applicant's psychiatric claim was barred by the post-termination defense provided under section 3600(a)(10). (Findings of Fact, April 23, 2021, p. 1.)

There is some evidence suggesting potential pre-termination notice of applicant's psychiatric injury and sexual harassment allegations.

Favours Applicant prevailed

These factual issues are relevant to exceptions under section 3208.3(e) and warrant further development at trial.

From the decision · page 12Because we have noted the existence of some evidence suggesting 1) potential pre- termination notice of applicant's injury5 and 2) sexual harassment allegations, issues of fact, it would be prudent to allow the parties to present additional evidence on these issues insofar as they are relevant to section 3208.3(e). Additionally, if the parties raise the good faith personnel action defense under section 3208.3(h), the WCJ must make specific findings on the Rolda factors, and,

ADJ12248957 · October 6, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

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

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page