Home/Case Law/PAULETTE JOHNSON vs. SAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT
Regular DecisionReconsideration

PAULETTE JOHNSON vs. SAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT

Filed: Apr 04, 2008
San Francisco
OAK 273736, OAK 284934, OAK 331633

CompFox AI Summary

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied BART's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the finding that BART violated Labor Code Section 132a. The Appeals Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's report, which determined BART unlawfully placed the applicant on administrative leave due to her assertion of legal rights in her workers' compensation case, not due to legitimate business necessity or medical restrictions. Specifically, BART waited over a year after an agreed medical examiner noted the applicant's inability to climb before placing her on leave, despite no medical opinion prior to the favorable award indicating she could not perform her usual duties.

Full Decision Text1 Pages

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied BART's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the finding that BART violated Labor Code Section 132a. The Appeals Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's report, which determined BART unlawfully placed the applicant on administrative leave due to her assertion of legal rights in her workers' compensation case, not due to legitimate business necessity or medical restrictions. Specifically, BART waited over a year after an agreed medical examiner noted the applicant's inability to climb before placing her on leave, despite no medical opinion prior to the favorable award indicating she could not perform her usual duties.

Read the full decision

Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.