It is the declared policy of this state that there should not be discrimination against workers who are injured in the course and scope of their employment.
(1)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 for compensation with his or her employer or an application for adjudication, or because the employee has received a rating, award, or settlement, is guilty of a misdemeanor and the employee’s compensation shall be increased by one-half, but in no event more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), together with costs and expenses not in excess of two hundred fifty dollars ($250). Any such employee shall also be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer.
(2)Any insurer that advises, directs, or threatens an insured under penalty of cancellation or a raise in premium or for any other reason, to discharge an employee because he or she has filed or made known his or her intention to file a claim for compensation with his or her employer or an application for adjudication, or because the employee has received a rating, award, or settlement, is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the increased compensation and costs provided in paragraph (1).
(3)Any employer who discharges, or threatens to discharge, or in any manner discriminates against any employee because the employee testified or made known his or her intentions to testify in another employee’s case before the appeals board, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and the employee shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer.
(4)Any insurer that advises, directs, or threatens an insured employer under penalty of cancellation or a raise in premium or for any other reason, to discharge or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee testified or made known his or her intention to testify in another employee’s case before the appeals board, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Proceedings for increased compensation as provided in paragraph (1), or for reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits, are to be instituted by filing an appropriate petition with the appeals board, but these proceedings may not be commenced more than one year from the discriminatory act or date of termination of the employee. The appeals board is vested with full power, authority, and jurisdiction to try and determine finally all matters specified in this section subject only to judicial review, except that the appeals board shall have no jurisdiction to try and determine a misdemeanor charge. The appeals board may refer and any worker may complain of suspected violations of the criminal misdemeanor provisions of this section to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or directly to the office of the public prosecutor.
Notes of Decisions
Angell v. Peterson Tractor, Inc., 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 323 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 10× “Is workers' compensation the exclusive remedy for an employee discriminatorily terminated based on a physical handicap arising from a work-related injury? We conclude it is because discrimination based on a work-related physical handicap is a risk explicitly included by the *985…”
Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, Inc. CA4/1, 80 Cal. Comp. Cases 1427 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “, Lab. Code, § 132a and FEHA). Because Prue asserts on appeal, and we agree, he alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of FEHA’s public policy against disability discrimination, we focus on that ground and need not address…”
Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc., 163 Cal. App. 4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “) Labor Code section 132a makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate “against any employee because he or she has filed or made known his or her intention to file a claim for [workers’] compensation with his or her employer.”
Green v. Ralee Eng'g Co., 960 P.2d 1046 (Cal. 1998).
· cites it 2× “…Corp., supra, 461 N.Y.S.2d at p. 236, fn. 1 , 448 N.E.2d 86 ; cf. former Elec.Code, § 1655, now ElecCode, § 12312; Lab.Code, §§ 132a, 923; see also Gov.Code, § 12900 et seq.; Lab.Code, § 1102.5.) The court's observations further reflect an appreciation of the need at the…”
Messer v. Huntington Anesthesia Grp., Inc., 620 S.E.2d 144 (W. Va. 2005).
· cites it 2× “At issue in Moorpark was whether California Labor Code section 132a provided the exclusive remedy for discrimination based on a work-related disability, precluding FEHA or common law wrongful discharge claims.”
Accardi v. Superior Court of Ventura Cty., 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5544 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “, constructive discharge, intentional interference with business relationship, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Currie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 17 P.3d 749 (Cal. 2001).
· cites it 2× “" Labor Code section 132a, by comparison, only permits an award of backpay and a 50 percent increase in compensation benefits otherwise payable on account of the worker's injury.”
Portillo v. G. T. Price Prods., Inc., 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4235 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 3× “Labor Code section 132a 1 in part pertinent hereto provides that: “(1) Any employer who discharges, or threatens to discharge, or in any manner discriminates against any employee because the latter has filed or made known his intention to file an application with the appeals…”
Jadwin v. Cnty. of Kern, 767 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (E.D. Cal. 2011).
“] Plaintiffs reliance on Currie and California Civil Code § 3287(a) is nevertheless problematic because, even assuming any backpay awarded in this case is linked to a FEHA/CFRA violation, the jury awarded backpay in one lump sum—$321,285—without specifying which particular…”
Hunt v. Check Recovery Sys., Inc., 478 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
· cites it 2× “There, the court held that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (“WCAB”) erred in failing to award an employee prejudgment interest under California Labor Code Section 132a. Currie, 24 Cal.”
Dyer v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1423 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “*1382 Labor Code section 132a provides that in the event an employer discriminates against an employee due to injury the employee is entitled to reinstatement, but does not otherwise define “reinstatement.”
Adkins v. State of California, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8596 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 3× “Labor Code section 132a provides for an increase in compensation to any employee discriminated against as a result of an injury incurred in the course and scope of employment.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 132a(1) — 2 cases
— Cal. Labor Code § 132a(4) — 5 cases
— Cal. Labor Code § 132a(d) — 1 case
— Cal. Labor Code § 132a(l) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.