|
Summary: California Labor Code section 132a prohibits employers from discriminating and retaliating against injured employees seeking workers compensation benefits. Prior to 2003, an employee could establish a prima facie case of discrimination simply by showing that an employer engaged in detrimental conduct toward the employee due to his industrial injury. However, in an important ruling recently, the California Court of Appeal in County of San Luis Obispo v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board (2005) clarified that an employee must show that he suffered more than mere detriment from his employer as a result of his industrial injury. Instead, the California Court of Appeal clarified that the employee must also show that he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment because of the on-the-job injury.
Details: Art Martinez was employed by the County of San Luis Obispo as a mental health therapist for the County's homeless outreach program when a violent patient assaulted Martinez and caused serious injuries to his body. Martinez underwent back surgery as a result of the industrial injury and was released to return to work with the restriction that he was not to work in an environment where there was the potential for physical altercation. As a result of this restriction, the County advised Martinez not to return to work until further notice because the County had determined that Martinez' duties as a mental health therapist were incompatible with his new work restriction.
Subsequently, Martinez filed a petition under Labor Code section 132a against the County claiming that he was unlawfully discriminated against because he had filed a claim for workers compensation benefits. The Workers Compensation Appeals Board ("WCAB") found in favor of the employee and awarded him back pay, reinstatement, and a $10,000 penalty. The employer appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
The California Court of Appeal reversed the WCAB's decision on two grounds: (1) Martinez could not establish his Labor Code 132a claim because he presented no evidence that he was singled out for disadvantageous treatment because of his injury and (2) the County does not violate Labor Code 132a, if it reasonably believes that the employee cannot perform the regular duties without risk of re-injury or additional injury.
Conclusion: This is an important case because the WCAB tends to favor employees in Labor Code section 132a cases and the recent ruling from the California Court of Appeal sends a clear message to the WCAB and employees that an employee must have evidence to establish that the employer actually singled him or her out for disadvantageous treatment in order to meet their prima facie burden under the law.
| 
