Discrimination in the Face of Worker's Compensation Claims

The California Workers’ Compensation Act provides for no-fault remedies to injured workers, on the theory that eliminating the proof requirements attendant on ordinary injury claims will save the parties time, money, and headaches. However, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (“WCAB”) has jurisdiction over two other types of cases which do not fit the “no-fault” mold on which the workers’ compensation system was established: liability for discrimination associated with workers’ comp claims, and serious and willful violation of the workers’ comp laws. This article outlines what employers may expect as respondents in a Labor Code § 132a discrimination cases.

A. Procedure Before the WCAB

Because of the reduced proof requirements in workers’ compensation benefits matters, procedure before the WCAB is designed to be “simple, informal, and expeditious.” (See http://tinyurl.com/CalWCAB, for published rules.) The WCAB “need not adhere to rules of pleading and practice binding ordinary courts. … This liberal way of proceeding, free of formalism, applies also to the manner in which parties are brought under the jurisdiction of the commission … although the constitutional requirements of due process must be observed.” (DeMartini v. Industrial Acc. Com. (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 139.) As a result, for instance, employers’ dispositive motions, such as demurrers and motions for summary judgment, are rarely heard by WCAB judges.

Who is an "Employer" in California?

In Martinez v. Combs, the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of who qualifies as an employer for certain aspects of the Labor Code's minimum wage and overtime laws. In that case, agricultural workers sued both their bona fide employers and also merchants and distributors of the employer's products. The workers claimed these later organizations qualified as "employers."

The Supreme Court credited the lower courts' holdings that merchants and distributors that they were not employers of these workers. The Court held, in essence that an employer is one who: 1) exercises control over wages, hours, or working conditions; 2) suffers or permits to work; or 3) engages, creating a common law employment relationship. This is a broader definition than under the FLSA, and appears to further California’s public policy provide greater protection to employees.