Portillo v. G. T. Price Products, Inc.

• Decision Date: 29 April 1982
• Citation: 182 Cal.Rptr. 291,131 Cal.App.3d 285
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4235 Lydia R. PORTILLO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. G. T. PRICE PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation, and Joan Bacallo, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 63665.

Page 291

182 Cal.Rptr. 291

131 Cal.App.3d 285, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4235

Lydia R. PORTILLO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. G. T. PRICE PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation, and Joan Bacallo, Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 63665.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

April 29, 1982.

As Modified May 17, 1982.

Hearing Denied June 30, 1982.

Joseph Posner, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and appellant.

Katz, Simon & Weiss, David M. Rosman and Richard F. Seiden, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

BEACH, Associate Justice.

NATURE OF APPEAL:

Plaintiff appeals from judgment of dismissal after demurrer was sustained in action for wrongful discharge from employment. Plaintiff seeks to have this court declare that Labor Code section 132a is not the exclusive remedy available to her upon her claim of wrongful discharge by her employer because of her filing a workers' compensation claim for injury. We affirm.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she was discharged from her employment because she sought workers' compensation for injuries received in her employment. She claims $500,000 in general damages for the tort of wrongful discharge and asks for $1,000,000 in punitive damages.

Labor Code section 132a ¹ in part pertinent hereto provides that: "(1) Any employer who discharges, or threatens to discharge, or in any manner discriminates against any employee because the latter has filed or made known his intention to file an application with the appeals board, or because the employee has received a rating, award or settlement, is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the provisions of section 4553. Any such employee shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by such acts of the employer.... Proceedings under this section for increased compensation as provided in Section 4553, or for reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits, are to be instituted by filing an appropriate petition with the appeals board, ... The appeals board is vested with full power, authority, and jurisdiction to try and determine finally all the matters specified in this section subject only to judicial review, except that the appeals board shall have no jurisdiction to try and determine a misdemeanor charge...." (Emphasis added.)

Section 4553 referred to in section 132a provides for a 50 percent increase of any compensation award up to $10,000.

Sections 5300 and 5301 set forth the basic and important policies of the state which grant the appeals board exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving workers' compensation. Section 5301 provides in pertinent part: "The appeals board is vested with full power, authority and jurisdiction to try and determine finally all the matters specified in Section 5300 subject only to the review by the courts as specified in this division." Section 5300 provides in pertinent part: "All the following proceedings shall be instituted before the appeals board and not elsewhere, ... (a) [F]or the recovery of compensation, or concerning any right or liability arising out of or incidental thereto." (Emphasis added.)

It would appear that by enacting those statutory provisions the legislature intended to provide the exclusive remedy for a worker discharged in retaliation for exercising workers' compensation rights.

Plaintiff argues that there is need for and that public policy supports the type of compensation and the forum here sought for wrongful discharge. However, it appears that the legislature has decided the answer to that particular need by enacting Labor Code section 132a. Plaintiff argues in effect that the statute is insufficient because it does not give her enough and it does not punish the employer enough. That argument should be addressed to the legislature, not to the court. The legislature has spoken on the very subject, i.e., how the wrong of which plaintiff complains shall be redressed.

The Workers' Compensation Act is designed to afford workers quick determination of their claims for injury without regard to the common law questions of liability, negligence or fault on the part of and other common law defenses available to the employer. The legislature has balanced this imposition or burden on the employer by limiting the employee to seek redress in a single forum, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. On balance, the fact that the exclusivity of remedy before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is for the benefit of workers generally outweighs any occasional disadvantage that could be argued.

Plaintiff cites several cases from other jurisdictions, Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co. (1973) 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425; Kelsay v. Motorola (1979) 74 Ill.2d 172, 23 Ill.Dec. 559, 384 N.E.2d 353; Sventko v. Kroger Company (1976) 69 Mich.App. 644, 245 N.W.2d 151; as well as the California cases of Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330; and Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal.3d 465, 165 Cal.Rptr. 858, 612 P.2d 948.

Plaintiff's point in citing these cases is that even though other statutory provisions prohibit the conduct of the employer, involved in the cited cases, the employee is nonetheless entitled to maintain an action at law irrespective of the possibility of the availability of the Workers' Compensation Law, Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 27 Cal.3d 465, 165 Cal.Rptr. 858, 612 P.2d 948 being cited as the primary example.

The out-of-state cases are not persuasive because those jurisdictions do not have the particular type of statute as we have in California, i.e., section 132a, which specifically addresses the problem of wrongful discharge and limits the employee to pursue a claim before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for such discharge.

As to the California Supreme Court's decision in Johns-Manville, supra, there the court was faced with the question of whether or not the particular conduct of the defendant fell within the purview of section 4553 so as to make it the exclusive remedy to the plaintiff, or whether that conduct gave rise to a common law cause of action in tort. The court found that the conduct was deceitful and fraudulent ...