ADJ10738767 — California WCAB decision

ADJ10738767 · June 18, 2025

The WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the March 24, 2025 Findings and Award and Order, and substituted new findings that defendant violated Labor Code section 132a by terminating applicant's employment on February 1, 2017. The WCAB awarded applicant increased compensation, reinstatement, and reimbursement for lost wages and benefits.

Issues decided

Medical opinions weighed

Authorities named

District office

Pomona

What the panel ordered

Applicant sought reconsideration of the March 24, 2025 Findings and Award and Order denying her claim under Labor Code section 132a; the WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and issued a new decision finding a violation of section 132a.

Read the official decision →

What was disputed, and how it came out

Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.

Discrimination under Labor Code §132aApplicant prevailedlow back · left shoulder

Applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination under section 132a by showing adverse action following her industrial injury and claim filing. Defendant failed to prove a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination, as no persuasive evidence of poor job performance or business necessity was presented. The WCAB found the termination violated section 132a.

From the decision · page 3In the case at hand, it is undisputed that applicant suffered a January 9, 2017 injury to low back and left shoulder. It is also undisputed that the applicant was given work restrictions which defendant agreed to accommodate and that applicant continued to work until her employment was terminated by defendant on February 1, 2017. As such, applicant established a prima facie case for her claim that defendant violated Labor Code section 132a.

The facts that decided it

What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.

Applicant sustained an industrial injury on January 9, 2017, and was given work restrictions which defendant accommodated.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Established the basis for applicant's protected status and prima facie case under section 132a.

From the decision · page 2Applicant sustained injury to her low back and shoulder while employed as an occupational health nurse by defendant Los Angeles Department of Water & Power on January 9, 2017. The parties settled applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits by way of Compromise and Release, ordered approved on November 2, 2023.

Applicant's employment was terminated on February 1, 2017, shortly after filing a workers' compensation claim and informing employer of legal counsel.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Temporal proximity supported inference of discriminatory motive under section 132a.

From the decision · page 9Here, defendant terminated applicant's employment without explanation three weeks after she filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, and immediately after applicant met with her employer regarding the claim and informed them that she had retained legal counsel. We therefore agree with the WCJ's conclusion in his report that "applicant established a prima facie case for her claim that defendant violated Labor Code section 132a." (Report, at p. 5.)

Defendant failed to provide persuasive evidence of poor job performance or business necessity for termination; no disciplinary actions or warnings were documented.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Defendant's failure to justify termination supported finding of unlawful discrimination under section 132a.

From the decision · page 9However, applicant's undisputed trial testimony was that she was "never written up by LADWP." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, dated October 31, 2024, at p. 5:3.) Indeed, the evidentiary record reflects no write-ups, disciplinary actions, warnings, or other corrective action taken while applicant was employed. The employer's own Personnel Action Notice (Termination) makes no mention of poor job performance, or indeed, any reason for applicant's termination. (Ex. L, Personnel Action Notice, dated February 8, 2017.) Nor does

What proof carried it

The evidence the panel weighed, by kind.

Testimony and credibilityfavours Applicant prevailed

Applicant's undisputed testimony that she was never written up or disciplined during employment, and lack of documentation of performance issues.

From the decision · page 9However, applicant's undisputed trial testimony was that she was "never written up by LADWP." (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, dated October 31, 2024, at p. 5:3.) Indeed, the evidentiary record reflects no write-ups, disciplinary actions, warnings, or other corrective action taken while applicant was employed. The employer's own Personnel Action Notice (Termination) makes no mention of poor job performance, or indeed, any reason for applicant's termination. (Ex. L, Personnel Action Notice, dated February 8, 2017.) Nor does

Documentary evidencefavours Applicant prevailed

Defendant's failure to provide persuasive documentary evidence or witness testimony confirming poor job performance or business necessity for termination.

From the decision · page 10Barnett testified that applicant's employment terminated because she was at the end of an emergency appointment, and acknowledged that the discharge form of February 1, 2017 was not signed and made no mention of job performance. (Id. at p. 7:9) None of the defense witnesses could independently verify that applicant's job performance failed to meet applicable standards, or that job performance was the reason for applicant's termination. Nor are we persuaded that Exhibit 25, an unsigned and unauthenticated handwritten list of job performance issues prepared only after applicant's industrial injury constitutes substantial evidence upon which we can base our decision. (Ex. 25, Handwritten Document, entitled "J. the applicant," dated February 16, 2017 and January 27, 2017.) Accordingly, the evidentiary record offers no persuasive documentary evidence of poor work performance, or when any of the alleged deficiencies occurred, no testimony from applicant's supervisor, and no evidence in defendant's own termination paperwork that applicant was discharged for performance issues or what those issues were.

ADJ10738767 · June 18, 2025

What the panel ordered

What was disputed, and how it came out

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

The facts that decided it

What the panel did with the medical opinions

The rules the panel named

What proof carried it

About this page