Appliance installer Morton Wong injured his elbow while employed at Crown Appliance in Modesto. Wong claimed he always had a good working relationship with Crown’s owner, Mary Sanchez, but that things went downhill when he returned to work following the injury. Eventually, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that Crown illegally discriminated against Wong for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Now a California appeal court has upheld that decision.
Employer Discharges Injured Worker
When Wong returned to work, Sanchez allegedly complained about his performance constantly, made him perform menial work such as cleaning bathrooms, and excluded him from monthly employee meetings. Wong’s co-worker, Mathew Burns, said Sanchez became hostile and “ice cold” toward Wong after the injury. Sanchez also allegedly told Burns she believed Wong was faking his injury.
Sanchez then fired Wong, allegedly because of complaints that he used bad language in front of a customer and that a screw recently fell out of a dishwasher he had installed a year earlier. Wong said he was unaware of any complaints about his performance until the termination.
Despite Sanchez’s insistence that she fired Wong because of customer complaints, the WCAB found she fired him because of his workers’ compensation claim, in violation of Labor Code Section 132a. Sanchez petitioned the Court of Appeal to review the WCAB’s decision.
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
Court Finds Retaliation
The appeal court denied Sanchez’s petition, concluding substantial evidence supported the WCAB’s retaliation finding.
The court explained that under Labor Code Section 132a, it’s a misdemeanor to discharge or otherwise discriminate against a worker for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Here, the court said there was no recognizable business reason that Sanchez could point to for Wong’s termination that would overcome the evidence of retaliation. Sanchez, who claimed she lost Wong’s personnel file, couldn’t back up her insistence that Wong was fired for customer complaints with any documentation or other verification. And, there was evidence that Wong’s employment relationship substantially changed after he filed his workers’ comp claim and that Sanchez believed he was faking his injury.
The appeal court sent the case back to the WCAB with directions to award Wong his attorney’s fees for having to respond to Sanchez’s petition.
Practical Tips
Although the facts of this case were fairly egregious, even more subtle employer conduct can support a claim for workers’ comp retaliation under Labor Code Section 132a—and these types of claims can be expensive. An employer found to have discriminated against an injured worker must increase the employee’s disability compensation by 50 percent, up to $10,000, plus reinstate the employee and pay back wages and benefits. Your workers’ comp insurer won’t cover these costs so they’ll come out of your own pocket.
To avoid retaliation claims, don’t take adverse action against an employee who has filed a workers’ comp claim unless you scrupulously adhere to your policies and past practices and have documentation to back up the legitimate business reasons for your decision. And, if you do have legitimate grounds for disciplining or terminating an employee who has recently filed a comp claim, keep in mind that the more time between when the claim was filed and the discipline, the less likely your actions will look like retaliation.