(November
1998)
State Supreme Court Rules
Disability Discrimination May Now Be
Brought Under Worker’s Comp and FEHA
|
|
|
|
Immediate
|
|
|
Employers with 5 or more employees
|
|
|
Workers who are disabled on the
job and denied reasonable accommodations can sue their employers
for disability discrimination, the state Supreme Court ruled
on August 18, 1998.
|
|
|
| Before the ruling, California workers
claiming discrimination because of workplace disabilities were
restricted to the workers’ compensation system; claims could
not be brought in state court. |
|
|
| Since 1990 they could also turn
to federal court for up to $300,000 in damages under the Americans
with Disabilities Act. |
|
|
Workers who are disabled by workplace
injuries and denied reasonable accommodations can sue their employers
for disability discrimination, the state Supreme Court ruled.
Before the ruling, California workers claiming discrimination
because of workplace disabilities were restricted to the workers’ compensation
system, which offers quick decisions but limits damages to $10,000
plus wage losses. Since 1990 they could also turn to federal
court for up to $300,000 in damages under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
There had been a debate among the Appellate Courts as to whether
or not claims of discrimination based on work-related disabilities
were restricted to the workers’ compensation system. But the
Supreme Court ruling held that such workers may now file claims
under both workers’ compensation and the Fair Employment and
Housing Act. The FEHA places no limit on damages, and allows punitive
damages and attorneys’ fees. It applies to employers of five
or more workers.
In Dillon v. City of Moorpark, Theresa L. Dillon, a secretary for
the city, suffered a knee injury on the job that required surgery.
She said she was cleared by her doctor to return to work in February
1994, and suggested accommodations that would make up for limits
in her movements, but was fired instead. She filed both a workers’ compensation
claim against the city, which has since been settled, and a disability
discrimination suit. This ruling upholds lower-court decisions
allowing the suit to proceed and denying the city’s motion
to dismiss.
The opinion by Justice Ming Chin said workers must rely solely
on the no-fault compensation system for injuries caused by workplace
conditions that are part of the “compensation bargain,” trading
speedy resolution for limited benefits. But he said different rules
apply to discrimination.
Discrimination based on disability “like sexual and racial
discrimination, falls outside the compensation bargain, and workers’ compensation
is not the exclusive remedy” Chin said. If a disabled employee
can do the job as well as a nondisabled employee, he said, “discrimination
based on disability, like sex and age discrimination, violates
a substantial and fundamental public policy.” |
|
|
The ruling may mean higher costs
for employers, slower workers’ compensation proceedings,
and more and broader lawsuits. As a result of this ruling, terminating
an employee with a recent work-related injury carries new and
greater risks. Employers should review their Injury and Illness
Prevention Programs and focus on how to prevent or reduce workplace
injuries. When an injury does occur, emphasis should be placed
on successfully returning the employee to work, with full consideration
of any reasonable accommodations.
This bulletin is a general overview of the subject matter,
and is not meant to provide professional opinions regarding
any specific case, matter, or set of facts, or to substitute
for the professional advice of Waag and Co. Instead, please
contact Susan S. Waag, Esq. for additional information. |
|
below.
All other Bulletins are in standard HTML format. If
you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is required
to open, view, and print the bulletins, you can download
the application FREE from the link below.
