When a Workplace Injury Becomes a Disability Discrimination Case
You were injured at work. You filed a workers’ compensation claim. And then you were fired — for “inability to perform essential functions,” for “business reasons,” for something that sounds legitimate but that happened only after the injury. You may have two cases, not one: workers’ comp and disability discrimination. Understanding how they interact is critical to protecting the full scope of your rights.
A workplace injury triggers two distinct legal systems. Workers’ compensation provides no-fault benefits for medical treatment, temporary disability payments, and permanent disability awards. FEHA’s disability discrimination protections provide a cause of action — with full civil damages — when the employer treats the employee adversely because of the disability the injury created.
These systems are not alternatives. They are parallel. An employee who is injured at work and then fired because of the resulting disability has a workers’ compensation claim for the injury AND a discrimination claim for the termination. Pursuing one does not forfeit the other, and the remedies are cumulative, not duplicative.
The confusion arises because many employees — and many employers — treat workers’ compensation as the exclusive remedy for everything that follows a workplace injury. It is not. Workers’ comp covers the injury. FEHA covers the employer’s response to it.
What workers’ compensation covers
Workers’ compensation is a no-fault system. The employee does not need to prove that the employer was negligent. The employer does not need to admit fault. The employee receives benefits — medical treatment, temporary disability payments while unable to work, permanent disability payments if the injury causes lasting impairment — regardless of who was at fault for the injury.
In exchange for this no-fault coverage, workers’ compensation generally provides the exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. The employee cannot sue the employer in civil court for the injury itself.
But workers’ compensation exclusivity applies to the injury — not to everything the employer does afterward.
What FEHA covers — and why it’s separate
An employee who is injured at work and develops a resulting disability — a physical limitation, a restriction on certain activities, a need for accommodation — is a person with a disability under FEHA. The injury is covered by workers’ comp. The disability — and the employer’s response to it — is covered by FEHA.
FEHA’s protections come into play when the employer takes adverse action because of the disability:
Failure to accommodate. The injured employee returns to work with restrictions — light duty, no lifting over twenty pounds, a modified schedule for physical therapy. The employer refuses to accommodate the restrictions, even though accommodations are available and feasible. This is a failure to accommodate under Government Code section 12940, subdivision (m) — separate from any workers’ compensation obligation.
Failure to engage in the interactive process. The employer does not discuss the restrictions with the employee, does not explore possible accommodations, does not consider modified duty or reassignment. Instead, it simply places the employee on leave or terminates them. The failure to engage is an independent FEHA violation under section 12940, subdivision (n).
Disability discrimination. The employer terminates the employee because of the disability — because the employee needs restrictions, because the employer views the employee as damaged or unreliable, because the employer does not want to deal with the accommodation. This is discrimination under section 12940, subdivision (a), and it is actionable in civil court with full damages — compensatory, emotional distress, and punitive.
Retaliation for filing a workers’ comp claim. The employer fires the employee for filing — or intending to file — a workers’ compensation claim. This is separately prohibited by Labor Code section 132a and may also support a Tameny claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Each of these claims is independent of the workers’ compensation system. They are not preempted by workers’ comp exclusivity because they do not seek damages for the injury itself — they seek damages for the employer’s discriminatory or retaliatory conduct in response to the injury.
How the two systems work together
In practice, the workers’ compensation case and the FEHA case proceed on parallel tracks.
The workers’ compensation case is filed with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. It seeks medical treatment, temporary and permanent disability benefits, and — if section 132a retaliation is alleged — reinstatement and a benefit increase. The case is adjudicated by a workers’ compensation judge under the workers’ comp system’s procedural rules.
The FEHA case is filed in civil court (after administrative exhaustion through the CRD). It seeks compensatory damages for lost wages and emotional distress, punitive damages for egregious conduct, and attorney’s fees. The case is tried before a jury.
The remedies do not overlap. Workers’ compensation benefits compensate for the physical injury and its economic impact. FEHA damages compensate for the discriminatory treatment and its emotional and economic impact. An employee can receive both.
The common scenario
The scenario that generates both claims follows a recognizable pattern:
The employee is injured on the job. The employee files a workers’ compensation claim and begins receiving treatment. The treating physician issues work restrictions. The employee notifies the employer of the restrictions and requests modified duty.
The employer either: refuses to accommodate the restrictions (failure to accommodate); does not discuss the restrictions with the employee (failure to engage in the interactive process); terminates the employee, citing “inability to perform essential functions” (disability discrimination); or terminates the employee shortly after the claim is filed, citing a pretextual reason (workers’ comp retaliation and disability discrimination).
In each of these scenarios, the employee has at least one workers’ comp claim (for the injury) and at least one FEHA claim (for the employer’s response). The workers’ comp claim is typically handled by a workers’ compensation attorney. The FEHA claim is handled by an employment attorney. In some cases, one attorney handles both; in others, the employee needs to understand that the two claims require separate proceedings and potentially separate counsel.
Why the distinction matters
The remedies available through FEHA are substantially greater than those available through workers’ compensation. Workers’ comp provides medical treatment and wage-replacement benefits calculated by formula. FEHA provides uncapped compensatory damages for emotional distress, punitive damages where the employer’s conduct is egregious, and attorney’s fees.
An employee who pursues only the workers’ compensation claim — without evaluating the FEHA claim — may be leaving significant recovery on the table. The workers’ comp system was not designed to address the emotional and dignitary harm of discrimination. FEHA was.
Conversely, an employee who pursues only the FEHA claim — without filing a workers’ compensation claim — may forfeit medical treatment benefits and disability payments that the workers’ comp system provides automatically.
The two systems are complementary. Understanding both — and pursuing both where the facts support it — ensures that the full scope of the employee’s rights is protected.
If you were injured at work and your employer responded by refusing to accommodate your restrictions, by failing to engage in the interactive process, or by terminating you — the workers’ compensation claim covers the injury. The disability discrimination claim covers the employer’s response. You may have both, and pursuing both protects the full scope of what the law provides.
This article is general information about California law and is not legal advice. Every situation turns on its particular facts.