“Very thankful for everything they did for us. Always responsive, reassured us every step of the way and obtained a great result.”
Miguel Orellana
✦ Board-Certified Specialist in Workers’ Compensation Law — State Bar of California ✦
Your employer cannot punish you for getting hurt. If they did, we’ll make them pay.
By Eman Yazdchi, Esq. · Certified Specialist in Workers' Compensation Law
Workers' comp retaliation in Stevenson Ranch does not look like a foreman firing a laborer on the spot. It looks like a performance improvement plan that appears two weeks after an injury report. It looks like a senior project manager who suddenly finds her responsibilities reassigned to colleagues. It looks like an annual review that drops from "exceeds expectations" to "needs improvement" for the first time in a fifteen-year career. The corporate employers where Stevenson Ranch professionals work use sophisticated tactics to punish employees who file workers' comp claims, and these tactics violate California law. Labor Code Section 132a prohibits any form of discrimination against employees who file or intend to file workers' comp claims, and the consequences for employers who violate this protection can be severe.
Stevenson Ranch is one of the most affluent communities in the Santa Clarita Valley, a master-planned enclave near the I-5 and SR-126 junction where roughly 20,000 residents commute to high-level positions throughout Los Angeles County. These professionals work for corporations, hospital systems, school districts, tech companies, and entertainment studios, all organizations with HR departments and legal counsel sophisticated enough to disguise retaliation as legitimate business decisions.
The performance improvement plan is the most common retaliation tool in corporate environments. When a Stevenson Ranch executive reports a cumulative trauma injury from years of desk work, the employer suddenly discovers performance deficiencies that were never documented before. The PIP creates a paper trail that the employer can later use to justify termination, claiming the firing was performance-based rather than retaliatory. The timing, however, tells the real story: if no performance issues existed before the injury report, the PIP is strong circumstantial evidence of unlawful retaliation.
Constructive termination is another tactic used against professional workers. Instead of firing the employee outright, the employer makes working conditions so intolerable that the employee feels compelled to resign. This may involve removing the employee from high-profile projects, excluding them from meetings, reassigning them to a less desirable role, relocating their office, or eliminating the collaborative relationships that make the job viable. The employee who resigns under these conditions may have a constructive termination claim, but only if the retaliatory conduct is documented.
Subtle demotion without a formal title change is particularly insidious. A healthcare administrator who files a back injury claim may find that her direct reports now report to someone else, that she is no longer invited to leadership meetings, or that her decision-making authority has been quietly removed. These changes affect both the employee's current compensation and her career trajectory, and they constitute actionable retaliation when connected to a workers' comp filing.
Denial of reasonable accommodations is another form of retaliation. When a physician places work restrictions on an injured employee, the employer is required to engage in an interactive process to determine whether modified or alternative work is available. Some employers skip this process entirely, telling the injured employee there is "no work available within your restrictions" when the actual motive is to push the employee off the payroll.
Labor Code Section 132a is the primary statutory protection. It provides that any employer who discriminates against a worker for filing or intending to file a workers' comp claim is guilty of a misdemeanor and is liable for increased compensation equal to lost wages and benefits up to $10,000, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees. The employee may also be entitled to reinstatement and back pay.
The standard of proof for a 132a claim requires the employee to show that the employer's adverse action was motivated, at least in part, by the employee's filing of a workers' comp claim. The action does not need to be solely motivated by the claim filing. If retaliation was a contributing factor in the employer's decision, the employee has a viable claim even if other legitimate factors also played a role.
Timing is one of the strongest forms of evidence. When an adverse employment action closely follows an injury report or claim filing, the temporal proximity creates an inference of retaliatory intent. Combined with evidence of the employee's strong pre-injury performance record, the absence of prior disciplinary issues, and the employer's failure to follow its own progressive discipline policies, a compelling 132a case emerges.
The 132a petition is filed at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, which means it is heard within the same system as your underlying workers' comp claim. The Van Nuys WCAB has jurisdiction over Stevenson Ranch cases, and the 132a petition can be litigated alongside or after the resolution of the underlying injury claim.
Attorney Eman Yazdchi advises Stevenson Ranch clients to begin documenting the moment they suspect retaliation. This means preserving emails, text messages, performance evaluations, meeting notes, and any written communication that reflects changes in the employer's treatment of the employee following the injury report. The firm also recommends that clients request copies of their personnel file under Labor Code Section 1198.5, which provides the right to inspect personnel records within 30 days of a written request.
The firm builds retaliation cases by constructing a detailed timeline that contrasts the employee's treatment before and after the injury report. Pre-injury performance reviews, commendations, promotions, and salary increases are placed alongside post-injury PIPs, reassignments, negative reviews, and terminations. The pattern speaks for itself when the evidence is organized and presented effectively.
Yazdchi Law pursues 132a petitions at the Van Nuys WCAB with the same rigor applied to the underlying injury claim. For Stevenson Ranch professionals whose careers have been derailed by retaliatory employers, the 132a remedy provides both financial recovery and a measure of accountability.
Injured at work in Stevenson Ranch? Call (661) 273-1780
Tap to call →Retaliation claims require an attorney who understands both workers' comp law and the sophisticated employment tactics that corporate employers use. Eman Yazdchi is a Board-Certified Workers' Compensation Specialist, a credential held by fewer than 1% of California attorneys. This certification reflects deep expertise in the full scope of workers' comp litigation, including 132a retaliation claims, and ensures that Stevenson Ranch professionals are represented by an attorney who has seen every version of corporate retaliation and knows how to fight it.
Ready to discuss your case? Schedule a free consultation.
Schedule Free ConsultationRead more testimonials →“Very thankful for everything they did for us. Always responsive, reassured us every step of the way and obtained a great result.”