CompFox AI Summary
This case involved an applicant who alleged her termination constituted discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant argued her employer terminated her due to her permanent and stationary industrial injury, especially after withdrawing a modified duty position without an interactive process. While a prima facie case was established, the defendant successfully rebutted the claim by demonstrating no available permanent positions accommodated the applicant's work restrictions. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the employer had a legitimate business reason for termination and the applicant failed to provide contradictory evidence.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case involved an applicant who alleged her termination constituted discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The applicant argued her employer terminated her due to her permanent and stationary industrial injury, especially after withdrawing a modified duty position without an interactive process. While a prima facie case was established, the defendant successfully rebutted the claim by demonstrating no available permanent positions accommodated the applicant's work restrictions. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the employer had a legitimate business reason for termination and the applicant failed to provide contradictory evidence.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.