ADAM Prue worked for the Brady Company, a construction company in San Diego, CA. Prue was injured at work and suffered a hernia in June 2011. Because of this, Prue filed a worker’s compensation claim with the company. Prue requested light duty work, fewer scheduled days so he could rest, and assistance from his apprentice. On July 18, 2011, Prue was called into the office of his supervisor and was told that he was being terminated. When Prue asked why, his supervisor allegedly pointed to Prue’s groin and said it was because of Prue’s hernia injury.
Prue sued his employer for wrongful termination. The employee claimed that he was terminated because he suffered a disability at work, and that his termination violated California’s public policy against disability discrimination against workers, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
The employer asked the trial court to dismiss the case, arguing that Prue is already under workers’ comp, and therefore, whatever claims he may have, those should be made under workers’ comp law and not under discrimination laws. This is called the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine. The trial court agreed with the employer and threw out Prue’s case. Prue appealed.
The Court of Appeal has to answer this question: Should California’s anti-discrimination laws still protect disabled employees who have already made claims under worker compensation for injuries sustained at work?
The high court ruled that, yes, California’s anti-discrimination laws should still protect an employee who has been injured at work, even though the employee’s remedies for his work-related injuries can be derived only from workers compensation. In other words, the court reiterated a long standing law that the workers’ compensation exclusivity doctrine does not apply when a workplace injury renders an employee disabled by FEHA’s definition.
FEHA prohibits discrimination based on disability or medical condition. An employer may not terminate an employee or discriminate against the employee in compensation or other conditions of employment based on the employee’s disability or medical condition.
Disability under FEHA includes physical disability, mental disability or a medical condition, including cancer-related conditions and genetic characteristics. An employee who has a disability should notify the employer of his or her condition in order to obtain accommodation.
If a disabled employee is unable to perform his or her old duties, the employer must engage in a timely, good faith interactive process to determine if reasonable accommodation can be made for the employee. The employer must start the interactive process if the employee’s disability becomes known or obvious.
If the disabled employee was terminated, even though he or she could have performed the job with reasonable accommodation, the employer’s conduct may be wrongful and the employer can be liable for disability discrimination against the employee. To establish a cause of action for disability discrimination in violation of FEHA’s public policy, the employee must show that: (1) employee suffers from a disability; (2) employee is a qualified individual and can perform the essential functions of the job; and (3) employee was subjected to an adverse employment action, such being fired, because of the disability. The employee must also show that the employer knew of the disability at the time it made the adverse employment decision.
* * *
The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr. welcomes inquiries about this topic. All inquiries are confidential and at no-cost. You can contact the office at (818) 291-0088 or visit www.joesayaslaw.com.
* * *
C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is an experienced trial attorney who has successfully obtained significant recoveries for thousands of employees and consumers. He is named Top Labor & Employment Attorney in California by the Daily Journal, consistently Aselected as Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum.
