ADJ17306191 · May 18, 2026

The WCJ found that the defendant failed to prove that the personnel actions, including the July 22, 2022 probationary release/demotion, were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith, which is required to sustain the Labor Code section 3208.3(h) defense. The WCAB panel adopted this reasoning and denied the defendant's petition.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact & Order of February 18, 2026 wherein it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending December 16, 2022, applicant sustained industrial injury to the psyche. In so finding, the WCJ found that defendant failed in its burden of showing that applicant's psychiatric injury was substantially caused by a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3, subd. (h).) Although the WCJ found that defendant proved that 25 percent of applicant's injury was caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions, this fell short of the statutory minimum of 35%. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3, subd. (b)(3).)

Defendant failed to provide any evidence or testimony explaining the July 22, 2022 probationary release/demotion personnel action, which constituted 40% of the causation of the psychiatric injury according to Dr. Wang's apportionment.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without proof that this personnel action was lawful, nondiscriminatory and in good faith, the defendant could not sustain its burden under Labor Code section 3208.3(h).

From the decision · page 7As to the personnel action effective July 22, 2022, which Dr. Wang apportioned 40% to, the Notice of Probationary Release/Return to Former Classification, dated July 21, 2022 and Action Taken Place Authorization Form with effective date July 22, 2022 (Exhibits B and E) gave no reason/basis for said personnel action. Contrary to defendants' claim, applicant did not have union representation regarding this personnel action (Defendants' Post Trial Brief, Page 3, Footnote 1, Lines 22-23, Lines 25-25). The Notice referenced Article 25 of the Memorandum of Understanding between IBEW, Local 47 and the City of Anaheim. No union representative was even copied on this Notice (Exhibit B). Indeed, applicant could have contacted her union representative to find out the reason/basis for said personnel action as suggested by defendants (Defendants' Post Trial Brief, Page 3, Footnote 1, Lines 25-26), however, at Trial, it is defendants' burden to prove to this WCJ that the reason/basis for said personnel action was in fact lawful, nondiscriminatory and good faith.

Found injury AOE/COE to psyche with predominant causation from actual events of employment. Apportioned 70% of industrial causation to personnel actions including demotion and termination events.

Her medical report was relied upon by both parties and the WCJ as substantial medical evidence for causation and apportionment.

From the decision · page 6Both parties offered and relied on Dr. Wang's report because her opinions are substantial medical evidence (Joint Exhibit Z). As indicated above, Dr. Wang found injury AOE/COE to psyche and opined that actual events of employment being the predominant causation of all causes herein. She then apportioned 70% arising from personnel actions and broke it down that 40% out of the 70% industrial causation to the demotion from Operator-in-Training and 30% out of the 70% industrial causation to the termination. Dr. Wang further broke down the 30% apportionment to termination to include 5% due to probationary release on September 8, 2021, 5% due to paid administrative leave on October 6, 2022, 10% due to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss dated December 1, 2022 and 10% due to the Notice of Dismissal dated December 16, 2022 (Joint Exhibit Z). This WCJ agrees that based on applicant's testimony at Trial and Dr. Wang's report, applicant's psychiatric injury involved actual events of employment. As such, the above prongs (1) and (2) under Rolda have been met.

Labor Code section 3208.3(h)

Labor Code section 3208.3(h) prohibits compensation for psychiatric injury substantially caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions, with the burden of proof on the party asserting the defense.

The WCJ and WCAB applied this standard to evaluate whether defendant met its burden to prove the personnel actions were lawful, nondiscriminatory and in good faith.

From the decision · page 1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings of Fact & Order of February 18, 2026 wherein it was found that while employed during a cumulative period ending December 16, 2022, applicant sustained industrial injury to the psyche. In so finding, the WCJ found that defendant failed in its burden of showing that applicant's psychiatric injury was substantially caused by a lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3, subd. (h).) Although the WCJ found that defendant proved that 25 percent of applicant's injury was caused by lawful, nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions, this fell short of the statutory minimum of 35%. (Lab. Code, § 3208.3, subd. (b)(3).)

Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. (2001) 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 241

The Rolda Analysis requires a step-by-step evaluation of causation and personnel action defenses in psychiatric injury claims.

The WCJ applied the Rolda Analysis to determine the compensability of the psychiatric injury and the validity of the personnel action defense.

From the decision · page 5The controlling case in this matter is Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 241 (2001), which laid out the step-by-step analysis commonly known as the Rolda Analysis as follows:

Defendant failed to provide evidence that the July 22, 2022 personnel action was lawful, nondiscriminatory and in good faith, which was necessary to sustain the Labor Code section 3208.3(h) defense.

From the decision · page 7As to the personnel action effective July 22, 2022, which Dr. Wang apportioned 40% to, the Notice of Probationary Release/Return to Former Classification, dated July 21, 2022 and Action Taken Place Authorization Form with effective date July 22, 2022 (Exhibits B and E) gave no reason/basis for said personnel action. Contrary to defendants' claim, applicant did not have union representation regarding this personnel action (Defendants' Post Trial Brief, Page 3, Footnote 1, Lines 22-23, Lines 25-25). The Notice referenced Article 25 of the Memorandum of Understanding between IBEW, Local 47 and the City of Anaheim. No union representative was even copied on this Notice (Exhibit B). Indeed, applicant could have contacted her union representative to find out the reason/basis for said personnel action as suggested by defendants (Defendants' Post Trial Brief, Page 3, Footnote 1, Lines 25-26), however, at Trial, it is defendants' burden to prove to this WCJ that the reason/basis for said personnel action was in fact lawful, nondiscriminatory and good faith.