ADJ6620180 · May 2, 2025

Applicant established a prima facie claim of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a based on credible testimony and evidence that defendant knew of the work-related injury and discriminated against applicant by terminating him without a legitimate business reason.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Amended Findings of Fact and Order/Award (F&O) issued on January 27, 2025, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that (1) while employed as a police officer by defendant during the period January 1, 2004 through February 2, 2008, applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to his psyche; (2) an award was issued based on the parties' Stipulations with Request for Award dated April 3, 2012 for 17% permanent disability; (3) applicant was employed from March 1997 until his termination on July 14, 2009, based on a three day Board of Rights hearing; (4) applicant established a prima facie claim of Labor Code section 132a1 discrimination; (5) defendant did not have a legitimate business reason for the discrimination; and (6) defendant discriminated against applicant for having a work-related injury pursuant to section 132a.

Applicant made known his intent to file a workers' compensation claim on or about February 3, 2008, supported by the unsigned DWC claim form and credible testimony.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This fact established that defendant was aware of the claim before disciplinary actions, supporting the discrimination claim under section 132a.

From the decision · page 11Because the WCJ found applicant's testimony credible, because defendant presented no testimony in rebuttal, and because we agree with the WCJ that the DWC claim form's unsigned statement that defendant became aware of applicant's claim on February 2, 2008 supports the proposition that defendant became aware of applicant's claim on or about February 3, 2008, we conclude that applicant made known his intent to file a workers' compensation claim on or about February 3, 2008. (Garza v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500] (finding that the WCJ's credibility determinations are to be afforded great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness while testifying at trial); Amended Opinion on Decision, p. 3; Report, pp. 4-5; Ex. 28, DWC-1 Claim Form, August 20, 2008.)

Defendant terminated applicant for disciplinary reasons related to absences and alleged misconduct, but the reasons were not reasonable given defendant's knowledge of the work-related injury.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This undermined defendant's business necessity defense and supported the finding of discrimination under section 132a.

From the decision · page 14Here, defendant's stated business reason for terminating applicant was that applicant committed five disciplinary offenses, including failing to timely notify it of an absence from work on March 4, 2008. (Ex. 18, Termination Notice, June 30, 2009, p. 1; Ex. H, Board of Rights Transcript.)

Labor Code section 132a

Labor Code section 132a prohibits discrimination against employees for filing or intending to file workers' compensation claims.

The Board applied section 132a to find that defendant discriminated against applicant by terminating him due to his work-related injury and claim.

From the decision · page 10II. Defendant first contends that applicant failed to establish his prima facie section 132a claim. Specifically, defendant argues that because it was not aware of applicant's workers' compensation claim until August 27, 2008, and because it initiated disciplinary proceedings before that date, it could not have singled him out for disadvantageous treatment. Section 132a provides in pertinent part: Any employer who discharges, or threatens to discharge, or in any manner discriminates against any employee because he or she has filed or made known his or her intention to file a claim...or an application for adjudication, or because the employee has received a rating, award, or settlement...testified or made known his or her intention to testify in another employee's case... may be guilty of a misdemeanor and responsible for the payment of increased compensation, costs, lost wages and work benefits to the injured employee. (§ 132a [Emphasis added].)

Applicant's credible testimony that he had a work-related injury and that defendant knew of it before termination.

From the decision · page 11Because the WCJ found applicant's testimony credible, because defendant presented no testimony in rebuttal, and because we agree with the WCJ that the DWC claim form's unsigned statement that defendant became aware of applicant's claim on February 2, 2008 supports the proposition that defendant became aware of applicant's claim on or about February 3, 2008, we conclude that applicant made known his intent to file a workers' compensation claim on or about February 3, 2008. (Garza v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500] (finding that the WCJ's credibility determinations are to be afforded great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness while testifying at trial); Amended Opinion on Decision, p. 3; Report, pp. 4-5; Ex. 28, DWC-1 Claim Form, August 20, 2008.)