Count On Our Team to Protect Your Interests
We Defend Against Accusations of Labor Code 132a Violations
There are numerous employment law and workers’ compensation insurance burdens placed on employers in California. The best and easiest way to avoid legal issues related to these areas is to comply with the law. Our employment law attorneys can work with your business to ensure Labor Code 132a compliance and are also experienced in defending against accusations of non-compliance.
Our experienced workers’ compensation discrimination defense law firm, provides counsel to employers. When one of our clients is accused of violating California Labor Code Section 132a, our attorneys energetically defend against the accusation and assert the rights of the client.
California Labor Code 132a
Under Labor Code Section 132a, it is against the law to subject employees to reprisals or discrimination when they file or threaten to file a workers’ compensation claim. Employers who discriminate or retaliate against an employee after the employee files a workers’ comp claim or expresses their intent to do could be fined and legal action by the employee could be taken. Our California labor code 132a defense attorneys aggressively defend clients facing these types of accusations.
Even if your business terminates an employee for a legitimate business reason, the reason can be difficult to prove especially after the employee files for workers’ compensation. Our firm will thoroughly investigate the accident and injury or illness, the human resources policies and procedures of the employer, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the termination or other consequences. We maximize the likelihood of the best possible outcome by building a strong defense from the ground up.
Building Your California Labor Code 132a Defense
California Labor Code 132a claims are challenging because of how the law is written. These are the types of cases where it is critical that a business retain an experienced defense attorney to defend against the accusations.
In preparation of your defense, we will examine the circumstances surrounding the employee’s claim. An employer who does not grant special privileges to an employee that was injured is not per se breaking the law. If possible, we will draw distinctions between changes in company policy, which may be permissible, and differential treatment of an employee after an injury. We will leverage the facts and circumstances to your advantage.
Avoiding Labor Code Section 132a Claims
Our firm provides representation to employers seeking to avoid 132a claims. We provide guidance concerning how employers should address employee performance issues and concerns who have filed a workers’ comp claim. Proactive involvement and counsel from an experienced workers’ compensation discrimination defense attorney can be extremely helpful to an employer looking to thwart a potential discrimination claim.
Our Labor Code Section 132a Defense Attorneys
Swingle, Van Egmond & Heitlinger is a law firm consisting of premier employment law defense lawyers. We are known for our attention to detail, thorough trial preparation, strong negotiation skills, and proven track record of results in the courtroom.
Let us put our experience to work for you. For representation related to Labor Code section 132a, contact the employment law defense attorneys at Swingle, Van Egmond & Heitlinger at (209) 340-1110.
“This firm exemplifies how a multi-faceted group of attorneys can work together to achieve positive results.”- James M.
Broadside Motor Vehicle Accident
Recovered the policy limits when client was broadsided in an intersection.Read More
Recovered $3,300,000 in buy-out and settlement of minority business owners in breach of fiduciary duty obligations of entity management action.Read More
Recovered $1,200,000 in income producing property in family business dispute action alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary against majority owner family members wherein all income payments and distributions to client had ceased for multiple years.Read More
$8,500,000 recovery. Client was rear-ended on the freeway and suffered catastrophic injuries.Read More
Plaintiff was bitten on the hand by his employer’s dog.Read More