Pickrel v. General Telephone Co.

• Decision Date: 09 November 1988
• Citation: 205 Cal.App.3d 1058,252 Cal.Rptr. 878
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 51 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1416 Arliss PICKREL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. B026114.

Page 878

252 Cal.Rptr. 878

205 Cal.App.3d 1058, 51 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1416

Arliss PICKREL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. B026114.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.

Nov. 9, 1988.

As Modified Nov. 29, 1988.

Review Denied March 3, 1989.

[205 Cal.App.3d 1059] Dennis F. Moss, The Employment Law Center, Joan M. Graff, Robert Barnes, John M. True, Chris Redburn and Christopher Ho, San Francisco, for plaintiff and appellant.

California Employment Lawyers Ass'n, Susan J. Hartley, Marina Del Rey, Kenneth A. Rivin, Nancy Bornn, Los Angeles, and Joseph Posner, Encino, amicus for plaintiff and appellant.

R. Ralph Snyder, Jr., Mark F. Sullivan, Robert H. Wyman, Thousand Oaks, Jerry A. Maldonado, Robert N. Herrera, Thousand Oaks, Lawrence A. Valdivieso, Ventura, Richard E. Potter, Thousand Oaks, Arnelle & Hastie, Joann M. Russell and James T. Diamond, Jr., San Francisco, for defendant and respondent.

ON REHEARING

ABBE, Associate Justice.

Appellant, Arliss Pickrel (Pickrel), sustained an industrial injury while employed by respondent General Telephone Company of California (General). She suffered a back sprain while moving a ladder and as a result of "continuous trauma" at work during the year preceding the ladder incident.

Pickrel filed two applications for adjudication pursuant to the Workers Compensation and Insurance Law (LAB.CODE, § 3200¹ et seq.) to recover compensation for her injury. Her claims were settled for $18,000 and the settlement was approved by a workers compensation judge.

Later, Pickrel filed this civil action against General alleging termination of employment because of a physical handicap in violation of Government Code section 12940. ² The physical handicap alleged in Pickrel's civil action is the same back problem she suffered on the job with General that was the basis of the workers compensation claims. In this action, Pickrel seeks lost earnings and fringe benefits, damages for anxiety, worry, mental and emotional distress and punitive damages. She alleges she was not rehired by General because of the physical handicap even though she was capable of returning to work. She also alleges General would not make reasonable accommodations to allow her to work in any position.

Pickrel appeals the judgment entered against her after refusing to amend her complaint upon a demurrer being sustained with leave to amend. The appeal is on an agreed statement, incorporating the complaint, the demurrer and other records. We affirm the judgment.

On appeal from such a judgment allegations of the complaint must be deemed true. (Johnson v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 298, 306, 191 Cal.Rptr. 704.) We assume Pickrel's back condition constitutes a physical handicap as defined in Government Code section 12926(h) and Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) Regulations section 7293.6.

Government Code section 12940(a) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee for, among other things, a physical handicap, unless the handicap renders the employee unable to work without endangering her or other employees' health or safety. An administrative procedure for handling such unlawful employment practices is provided for before the FEHC. If 150 days pass from the time such a complaint has been filed with FEHC and no action has been taken, the employee is entitled to file a civil action in the superior court. (Gov.Code § 12965(b).) No action was taken by FEHC on Pickrel's complaint during the 150-day period.

The California Constitution vests the Legislature with plenary power to create a complete system of workers' compensation and to enforce liability on the part of employers for industrial injuries to their employees. Article XIV, section 4 of the California Constitution provides in pertinent part that a complete system of workers' compensation includes "... full provision for vesting power, authority and jurisdiction in an administrative body with all the requisite governmental functions to determine any dispute or matter arising under such legislation, to the end that the administration of such legislation shall accomplish substantial justice in all cases expeditiously, inexpensively, and without encumbrance of any character; all of which matters are expressly declared to be the social public policy of this State, binding upon all departments of the State government."

Pursuant to this constitutional mandate, the California Legislature has enacted a comprehensive workers' compensation system providing for a compulsory and exclusive scheme of employer liability without fault for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment (Cal.Workers' Compensation Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1985) § 1.3, p. 4). The system provides extensive remedies such as compensation for temporary disability, medical care, and permanent disability, as well as remedies for employer discrimination ( § 132a).

This statutory scheme of workers' compensation is "exclusive of all other statutory and common law remedies, and substitutes a new system of rights and obligations for the common law rules governing liability of employers for injuries to their employees." (Graczyk v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 997, 1002, 229 Cal.Rptr. 494.)

Since its adoption a basic philosophy underlying the exclusivity of the workers' compensation system has been that an employer who has complied with the law by securing the payment of benefits through insurance should be immune from tort actions brought by injured workers. (1 Herlick Cal.Workers' Compensation Law (3d ed. 1987) § 12.20, p. 428; id., § 1.1, p. 2.)

Effective January 1, 1983, the Legislature amended sections 3600 and 3602, resulting in the current statutory exclusive remedy rule. This rule is based on the "quid pro quo" of the workers' compensation scheme whereby the Legislature balanced the sacrifices and gains of employers and employees, employers accepting liability without fault to pay compensation to injured employees in exchange for exemption of the employers from civil actions by the employees for damages. (Cal.Workers' Damages Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1985) § 3.2, p. 41; 2A Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law (1987) § 65.11, pp. 12-1 et seq.; see Hisel v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 969, 974-975, 238 Cal.Rptr. 678.) This fundamental social compromise had been embodied in the workers' compensation law when it was codified in 1937. ³

Section 132a provides in pertinent part: "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. [p] (1) Any employer who 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 an application for adjudication with the appeals board, or because the employee has received a rating, award or settlement, is guilty of a misdemeanor and 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 ($250). Any such employee shall also be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer."

The Supreme Court held that section 132a applies to all employer actions which in any manner discriminate against an industrially injured employee. (Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 658, 667, 150 Cal.Rptr. 250, 586 P.2d 564.) The court concluded that section 132a serves a remedial function by providing compensation to an aggrieved worker for discrimination incurred as a result of the worker's injury. "The policy of protection which the workers' compensation laws declare can only be effectuated if an employer may not discharge an employee because of the employee's absence from his job as the consequence of an injury sustained in the course and scope of employment." (Id., at p. 669, 150 Cal.Rptr. 250, 586 P.2d 564.)

WCAB has broad authority over the civil aspects of section 132a, having jurisdiction to try and determine all matters specified in the...