ADJ887731 · April 13, 2022

Applicant failed to prove that defendant's termination was related to her workers' compensation claim because the termination process began before defendant had notice of the claim.

From the decision · page 8Based upon this record, it is clear that applicant's termination resulted from proceedings initiated before defendant could have known of her workers' compensation claim and thus unrelated to her claim. It follows that the evidence fails to demonstrate applicant's prima facie section 132a claim.

Defendant initiated termination process on August 24, 2006, before receiving notice of applicant's workers' compensation claim on September 21, 2006.

Favours Defendant prevailed

Termination was unrelated to workers' compensation claim, negating discrimination claim.

From the decision · page 8Based upon this record, it is clear that applicant's termination resulted from proceedings initiated before defendant could have known of her workers' compensation claim and thus unrelated to her claim. It follows that the evidence fails to demonstrate applicant's prima facie section 132a claim.

Labor Code section 132a

Labor Code section 132a prohibits discrimination against workers who file workers' compensation claims.

Applicant must prove termination was due to workers' compensation claim.

From the decision · page 4Section 132a provides in pertinent part:

Lauher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 30 Cal.4th 1291 (2003)

Prima facie claim of discrimination requires showing adverse action closely following notice of claim and legal right to benefit.

Applicant must show termination was after notice of claim and that she had a legal right to the benefit lost.

From the decision · page 5The court explained that, although Lauher had clearly suffered a detriment by having to use his accumulated sick leave and vacation time for his visits to see Dr. Houts, he never established he `had a legal right to receive TDI [temporary disability indemnity] and retain his accrued sick leave and vacation time, and that [his employer] had a corresponding legal duty to pay TDI and refrain from docking the sick leave and vacation time.' Thus, said the court, `[t]o meet the burden of presenting a prima facie claim of unlawful discrimination in violation of section 132a, it is insufficient that the industrially injured worker show only that... he or she suffered some adverse result as a consequence of some action or inaction by the employer that was triggered by the industrial injury. The claimant must also show that he or she had a legal right to receive or retain the deprived benefit or status, and the employer had a corresponding legal duty to provide or refrain from taking away that benefit or status.' (Lauher, supra, 30 Cal.4th at pp. 1299- 1300, italics added.)

Applicant did not provide required medical documentation for leave of absence despite defendant's requests.

From the decision · page 7However, the record reveals that defendant initiated the action that culminated in applicant's termination on August 24, 2006, twenty-eight days before it received notice of her claim. On that date defendant advised applicant that she had been off work without leave since August 15, 2006, that she was ineligible for FMLA, and that she would be subject to termination through the "voluntary resignation" process unless she were to provide documentation required for a leave of absence. (Ex. 5, Letter dated August 24, 2006, pp. 1-2.) Then, on September 18, 2006, three days before it learned of applicant's workers' compensation claim, defendant again advised applicant that she would be subject to termination through the "voluntary resignation" process unless she provided the requested documentation. (Ex. 4, Letter dated September 18, 2006.) Although she knew of defendant's requests, applicant did not provide the documentation. (Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence, January 28, 2020, pp. 5:26-6:2.) Thereafter, on

Applicant testified she never voluntarily resigned, but defendant's letters and employee handbook notified her of leave requirements and consequences of non-compliance.

From the decision · page 4There is no evidence in the record which demonstrates that the applicant ever contacted AAA, either verbally or in writing, in order to respond to AAA regarding her 2006 medical leave request.