An employee who says they were fired because of a work-related injury or disability can petition the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board under Labor Code section 132a, and can also sue in court under FEHA and for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, the Supreme Court of California held in City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998). Workers’ comp exclusivity still bars many civil claims for workplace injuries. But it doesn’t bar a discrimination or retaliation lawsuit, which can carry remedies well beyond section 132a’s.
What does Labor Code 132a prohibit?
Retaliation against employees for using the workers’ compensation system. Labor Code section 132a opens with a policy statement: “It is the declared policy of this state that there should not be discrimination against workers who are injured in the course and scope of their employment.”
The operative rule is in paragraph (1). It covers an employer that “discharges, or threatens to discharge, or in any manner discriminates against any employee because he or she has filed or made known his or her intention to file a claim for compensation with his or her employer or an application for adjudication, or because the employee has received a rating, award, or settlement.” Paragraph (3) adds similar protection for an employee who testifies, or says they’ll testify, in a coworker’s case before the appeals board.
The Supreme Court has read the statute more broadly than its text. In City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143, it explained that an earlier decision had extended section 132a to discrimination based on a disability that resulted from a workplace injury. That means a decision tied to an employee’s work restrictions can raise a section 132a issue even when no one mentions the claim itself. But in Department of Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003), the Supreme Court held the employee must show the employer “singled him out for disadvantageous treatment because of the industrial nature of his injury,” and it repeated that section 132a doesn’t require an employer to reemploy an employee who is unqualified or for whom no position is available.
What can an employee recover under section 132a?
Limited remedies, in a separate forum. Under paragraph (1), the employee’s compensation “shall be increased by one-half, but in no event more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), together with costs and expenses not in excess of two hundred fifty dollars ($250).” The employee is also entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the employer’s acts.
These claims go to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board by petition, not to a jury. The statute also makes a violation a misdemeanor, though the appeals board has no power to decide a criminal charge. Insurers aren’t exempt. Paragraph (2) reaches an insurer that pressures an employer to fire a worker for filing a claim.
On its own, a section 132a petition is a contained risk. The $10,000 cap on the increase is low by litigation standards. The trouble is that a section 132a petition rarely stays on its own.
Can the employee also sue under FEHA?
Yes. Before 1998, several Courts of Appeal had treated section 132a as the only remedy for discrimination based on a work-related disability. Moorpark rejected that line of cases. “In conclusion, we hold that section 132a does not provide an exclusive remedy and does not preclude an employee from pursuing FEHA and common law wrongful discharge remedies,” the court held.
The case involved an administrative secretary who was terminated after knee surgery, once her doctor released her to return to work. The city manager told her that her residual disability prevented her from doing her essential job functions, according to the opinion. She filed a section 132a petition and also sued under FEHA and for wrongful termination. The court allowed both civil claims to go forward.
The court’s reasoning matters for employers. It noted that section 132a sits in division 1 of the Labor Code, while the workers’ comp exclusivity provisions apply to division 4 remedies. And it treated discrimination against injured workers as conduct outside the bargain behind the workers’ comp system. The practical result is that an injured employee’s termination can produce a section 132a petition, a CRD complaint, and a civil lawsuit, each with its own procedure and remedies.
The court also noted a limit. It said “not every instance of disability discrimination in violation of section 132a gives rise to a valid FEHA claim,” because the workers’ comp and FEHA definitions of disability differ, according to Moorpark. A FEHA claim still has to meet FEHA’s own standards.
What does workers’ comp exclusivity still bar?
Ordinary injury claims, and many emotional distress claims. Labor Code section 3602(a) makes workers’ compensation “the sole and exclusive remedy of the employee or his or her dependents against the employer” where the conditions of compensation are met. Subdivision (b) lists the statutory exceptions, including injury caused by “a willful physical assault by the employer” and an injury made worse by the employer’s fraudulent concealment of it.
Emotional distress claims tied to normal workplace decisions are usually barred. In Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, which has been superseded by statute on other grounds, the court addressed an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim by two employees who alleged whistleblower retaliation. It held that “The alleged wrongful conduct, however, occurred at the worksite, in the normal course of the employer-employee relationship, and therefore workers’ compensation is plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy for any injury that may have resulted.”
That defense has a gap employers should expect. In Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75, the Court of Appeal declined to extend Miklosy to emotional distress claims based on FEHA violations. It held that emotional distress claims “based on such discrimination and retaliation” fall outside workers’ comp exclusivity, according to the opinion. Light noted that another Court of Appeal decision had read Miklosy more broadly, so courts haven’t fully settled the point. Where a complaint ties emotional distress to FEHA conduct, an exclusivity demurrer is a weaker bet.
| Claim after a workplace injury | Where it’s heard | Effect of workers’ comp exclusivity |
|---|---|---|
| Benefits for the injury itself | Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board | Exclusive remedy, subject to the section 3602(b) exceptions |
| Section 132a retaliation or discrimination | Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board | Not exclusive; civil claims may also proceed (Moorpark) |
| FEHA disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation | CRD, then court or arbitration | Not barred (Moorpark) |
| Emotional distress from ordinary personnel actions | Court | Generally barred (Miklosy) |
| Emotional distress based on FEHA discrimination or retaliation | Court | Not barred, according to Light |
How should employers handle an injured employee’s job?
As a FEHA problem first. A work injury that limits what an employee can do usually triggers the duty to engage in the interactive process and consider reasonable accommodation. The firm’s post on the interactive process covers that duty. Section 132a disputes often turn on the same facts: what the restrictions were, what positions existed, and why the employer decided as it did.
Timing is the second issue. A termination soon after a claim is filed, or soon after a doctor’s release, will look connected to the claim whether it is or not. A decision documented before the injury, or one applied the same way to employees who never filed claims, holds up better. A reason that first appears after the claim is filed doesn’t.
Coordination is the third. When a carrier retains workers’ comp defense counsel, that counsel’s focus is typically the benefits claim. The employment claims belong to the employer, and the two defenses should share facts so the company’s position on the employee’s ability to work stays consistent. The firm’s post on wrongful termination lawsuits covers the civil claims these disputes usually produce.
When an injured employee claims retaliation
- Preserve the claim file, medical restrictions and work status reports, job descriptions, the personnel file, payroll and timekeeping data, and the emails and texts among the managers involved.
- Calendar the response deadlines on the section 132a petition, CRD complaint, or summons, and check for an arbitration agreement and an employment practices liability (EPLI) policy with notice terms.
- Identify who knew about the claim and when, and who made the employment decision, and stop any further action against the employee that could look like retaliation.
- Pull the records of the interactive process, the available positions, and how the company treated employees with similar restrictions who didn’t file claims.
- Get legal advice before responding, contacting the employee or their lawyer, or settling the workers’ comp case, since that settlement may not resolve the employment claims.
These claims often arrive in more than one forum at once. The firm’s employment defense attorneys in California coordinate the civil defense with the workers’ comp case.
Workers’ comp retaliation questions employers ask
Can we terminate an employee who’s out on workers’ comp?
Sometimes, but it’s one of the riskiest decisions an employer makes. The reason has to be unrelated to the claim, and the company has to have met its FEHA duties on accommodation and the interactive process. Under Moorpark, the employee can bring a section 132a petition alongside civil claims over the same decision. A documented, consistently applied reason is the best defense.
Is an insurer liable under section 132a too?
It can be. Section 132a(2) covers an insurer that advises, directs, or threatens an employer, under penalty of cancellation or a premium increase or for any other reason, to fire an employee for filing a claim. An employer should never cite insurance cost or carrier pressure as the reason for a termination.
Does exclusivity cover injuries a supervisor causes?
Usually, if the injury arose out of the job. But section 3602(b)(1) allows a civil action where the injury is “proximately caused by a willful physical assault by the employer.” Whether a given incident fits that exception depends on its facts, so these claims need early legal review.
Does a 132a claim stop the FEHA lawsuit?
No. Moorpark held the remedies coexist. But the court said a win on a section 132a petition “would not establish a FEHA violation,” and that “equitable principles preclude double recovery for employees,” according to Moorpark. Lost wages recovered in one forum shouldn’t be paid again in the other. Employers should defend both cases on the same facts.
If your company is facing a workers’ comp retaliation claim
If an injured employee has filed a section 132a petition, a CRD complaint, or a lawsuit over how the company handled their injury, the restrictions on file and the reasons documented at the time usually decide how much of the claim is real. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims involving disability discrimination and retaliation after a workplace injury. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statutes are Labor Code section 132a and Labor Code section 3602. The cases are City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143, Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, and Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75.
This post is general information about California and federal employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.