ADJ7940908 · June 1, 2026

Applicant failed to prove a prima facie case of discrimination under Labor Code section 132a or an actual violation by a preponderance of the evidence regarding his termination or disciplinary actions. The WCJ found the employer's witnesses credible and the disciplinary actions consistent with company policy, not discriminatory.

From the decision · page 12Additionally, the WCJ weighed the witnesses' testimony and found them to be credible in their assertions. Realistically, there was not much differentiation between the testimony of the employer from Applicant's testimony. We accord this credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor while testifying at trial. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318§ 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Thus, applicant failed to prove either a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of section 132a, or an actual violation of that section by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to his termination or disciplinary actions.

Applicant missed three consecutive shifts without contacting or responding to employer, combined with prior violations and progressive discipline policy use.

Favours Defendant prevailed

This supported the finding that there was no persuasive evidence of discrimination based on injury.

From the decision · page 12and content of the harassment violation on July 17, 2011, he did admit that an altercation did occur. We do not find it persuasive that the write up was pretextual simply because it was mistakenly dated an earlier date when the basic facts of the incident did occur on the stated date. Finally, applicant missed three consecutive shifts without a contacting or responding to the employer. In combination with the prior two violations and the use of the progressive discipline policy rather than the immediate termination, we cannot find persuasive evidence that applicant was discriminated against because of his injury.

Lauher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., Franco v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

To establish a prima facie claim of unlawful discrimination under Labor Code section 132a, the claimant must show they were subject to disadvantages not visited on other employees because they were injured.

Applicant failed to meet this burden as the disciplinary actions were consistent with company policy and not discriminatory.

From the decision · page 11Thus, "[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, at 1300; Franco, supra, at 679.) Stated another way, an injured worker must show they were subject to "disadvantages not visited on other employees because they were injured." (Id.)

WCJ found employer witnesses credible and applicant's testimony not substantially different, favoring defendant's position.

From the decision · page 12Additionally, the WCJ weighed the witnesses' testimony and found them to be credible in their assertions. Realistically, there was not much differentiation between the testimony of the employer from Applicant's testimony. We accord this credibility determination great weight because the WCJ had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor while testifying at trial. (Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 318§ 319 [35 Cal.Comp.Cases 500].) Thus, applicant failed to prove either a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of section 132a, or an actual violation of that section by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to his termination or disciplinary actions.