CompFox AI Summary
This case involves an applicant's claim of discriminatory termination under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant argued he was fired because he reported an industrial injury and submitted a doctor's report requiring modified duty. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) majority affirmed the judge's finding that the employer did not violate section 132a. This decision was based on the judge's credible testimony that the employer had already decided to terminate the applicant prior to the injury report. However, one member dissented, arguing the applicant met his burden to show termination was due to his injury, citing the timing of the termination after the doctor's note and the employer's shifting reasons.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case involves an applicant's claim of discriminatory termination under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant argued he was fired because he reported an industrial injury and submitted a doctor's report requiring modified duty. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) majority affirmed the judge's finding that the employer did not violate section 132a. This decision was based on the judge's credible testimony that the employer had already decided to terminate the applicant prior to the injury report. However, one member dissented, arguing the applicant met his burden to show termination was due to his injury, citing the timing of the termination after the doctor's note and the employer's shifting reasons.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.