Search Results for: Jeanette France

As we reported in our April 13, 2026 newsletter, Jeanette France worked as an occupational health nurse for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP).On February 1, 2017 — less than a month after she had reported a work injury — the DWP terminated her employment. The DWP maintained that France was terminated for poor job performance that predated her injury.

France filed a civil lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. In December 2019, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted summary judgment for the DWP, finding that France was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons — namely, poor performance predating her injury — and that France failed to raise a triable issue of pretext.

France also filed a workers’ compensation petition alleging the DWP violated Labor Code section 132a, which prohibits employers from discharging employees for filing or threatening to file a workers’ compensation claim. After a multi-day hearing, the workers’ compensation judge denied the claim, finding that France failed to prove the termination was retaliatory in light of the performance evidence, and that she produced no evidence that those involved in terminating her even knew about her statements in the workers’ compensation meeting minutes earlier.

France sought reconsideration. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition, reversed the judge, and found the DWP had violated section 132a. The WCAB concluded the DWP failed to carry its burden of establishing good cause for termination, emphasizing the absence of written disciplinary records, the lack of a stated reason on termination paperwork, and the fact that Dr. Israel could not recall exact dates for the performance issues she observed.

On April 8, 2026 the Court of Appeal granted the DWP’s petition for writ of review in the unpublished case of L.A. Department of Water & Power v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Case No. E086551 (April 2026) and annulled the WCAB’s decision, directing the WCAB to reinstate the workers’ compensation judge’s original order denying France’s section 132a claim.

The Court of Appeal held on April 8th that the WCAB’s findings were unreasonable because the Board systematically ignored relevant evidence rather than evaluating the record as a whole. Specifically, the court identified several ways the WCAB mischaracterized the record, such as ignoring the superior court’s summary judgment order — part of the record — containing Israel’s declaration placing those issues in October and November 2016, well before the injury. The court stressed that the WCAB was free to weigh evidence and make credibility determinations, but it was not free to simply ignore evidence that cut against its conclusions.

The WCAB Petitioned the Court of Appeal for a Rehearing of the April 8 appellate decision against it. On April 27, 2026 the Court of Appeal issued and Order Denying Petition for Rehearing and Modifying Opinion [No Change in Judgment]

Footnote 2 on page 12 of the April 8, 2026 Court of Appeal decision it was noted that “At oral argument, counsel for the WCAB contended that the reporter’s transcript of the February 2025 hearing, at which both Barnett and Israel testified, was not available to the WCAB when it issued its decision. The contention is based entirely on matters outside the certified record, so we cannot consider it. (§ 5951.) The reporter’s transcript of the February 2025 hearing is part of the record of proceedings that counsel for the WCAB certified is “a full, true and correct copy of the record of proceedings (consisting of 9 volumes) before the Appeals Board in the above-entitled matter involving a claim by Jeanette France. We also note that the reporter’s transcript of the February 2025 hearing was certified by the reporter in April 2025, and the WCAB issued its decision in June 2025.”

On its own motion, the Court Ordered that the opinion filed April 8, 2026, be modified as follows. “At the end of footnote 2 on page 12, add the following paragraph:”

“The WCAB advances the same argument in its petition for rehearing, but the petition does not address or even mention the analysis in the first paragraph of this footnote. The WCAB argues that because it did not receive the reporter’s transcript before issuing its decision, we cannot rely on it.”

“But as we have explained, the WCAB’s assertion that it had not yet received the transcript when it issued its decision is based entirely on matters outside the certified record, so we are required by statute to reject it. (§ 5951 [“No new or additional evidence shall be introduced”].)”

“Again, the record certified by the WCAB contains the transcript, and we are required by statute to base our decision on the certified record. (Ibid. [“the cause shall be heard on the record of the appeals board, as certified to by it”].) In addition, as we explain post, the reporter’s transcript of the hearing is not the only evidence that the WCAB unreasonably ignored.“

“For example, the certified record contains both the order granting summary judgment in the FEHA action and excerpts of Okhanes’s deposition testimony, both of which include evidence of the problems with France’s job performance. The WCAB ignored all of that evidence, and that dereliction is not explained by the WCAB’s alleged lack of access to the reporter’s transcript of the hearing.”

“The modification does not change the judgment.”

Jeanette France worked as an occupational health nurse for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP), first through a staffing agency from June to September 2016, and then as a direct hire under an emergency appointment beginning September 27, 2016. Emergency appointments under the Los Angeles City Charter are temporary, capped at one year, and may be terminated at any time without cause.

France’s immediate supervisor was Bedros Okhanes, who reported to medical director Dr. Leslie Michelle Israel. On January 9, 2017, France was injured at work when a chair she was sitting in fell, causing injuries to her lower back and shoulder. The next day she reported the injury and filed a workers’ compensation claim. On February 1, 2017 — less than a month after the injury — the DWP terminated her employment. France described a sequence of events that day: she was first called to the workers’ compensation office, where she met with Okhanes and two workers’ compensation staff members who asked her to sign documents. France told them she had retained a lawyer — something she had not previously disclosed. Ten to fifteen minutes later, she was called into Dr. Israel’s office, where the DWP’s director of human resources, Deitra Barnett, told France she was fired without explanation.

The DWP maintained that France was terminated for poor job performance that predated her injury. Dr. Israel identified several concerns: France failed to check patient identification before administering vaccines, left vaccines unrefrigerated, and did not take a patient’s blood pressure before a breathing test. Okhanes, in a 2019 deposition (he passed away in 2022), confirmed that France had “problems with her assignments.” Barnett testified that as an emergency hire, no written documentation of performance deficiencies was required before termination.

France denied ever being spoken to about performance issues or receiving any discipline. She also pointed out that the DWP’s internal termination paperwork listed no reason for her discharge.

France pursued two tracks. First, she filed a civil lawsuit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. In December 2019, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted summary judgment for the DWP, finding under the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 that France was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons — namely, poor performance predating her injury — and that France failed to raise a triable issue of pretext.

Second, France filed a workers’ compensation petition alleging the DWP violated Labor Code section 132a, which prohibits employers from discharging employees for filing or threatening to file a workers’ compensation claim. After a multi-day hearing, the workers’ compensation judge denied the claim, finding that France failed to prove the termination was retaliatory in light of the performance evidence, and that she produced no evidence that those involved in terminating her even knew about her statements in the workers’ compensation meeting minutes earlier.

France sought reconsideration. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition, reversed the judge, and found the DWP had violated section 132a. The WCAB concluded the DWP failed to carry its burden of establishing good cause for termination, emphasizing the absence of written disciplinary records, the lack of a stated reason on termination paperwork, and the fact that Dr. Israel could not recall exact dates for the performance issues she observed.

The Court of Appeal granted the DWP’s petition for writ of review in the unpublished case of L.A. Department of Water & Power v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board  Case No. E086551 (April 2026) and annulled the WCAB’s decision, directing the WCAB to reinstate the workers’ compensation judge’s original order denying France’s section 132a claim.

The court held that the WCAB’s findings were unreasonable because the Board systematically ignored relevant evidence rather than evaluating the record as a whole. Citing Bracken v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 246, 255, the court emphasized that while the WCAB has broad authority to make its own credibility determinations on reconsideration, it cannot meet the substantial evidence standard by isolating favorable evidence and ignoring contradictory facts. The court also relied on Lamb v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 274, 281 and Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 312, 317 for the same principle.

Specifically, the court identified several ways the WCAB mischaracterized the record. Both Barnett and Israel testified that France was terminated for poor performance, yet the WCAB found that no witness confirmed this. The WCAB stated Barnett testified France was terminated merely because the emergency appointment ended, but Barnett actually testified the appointment was ended because of poor performance. The WCAB discredited Israel’s testimony because she could not recall specific dates for the performance issues, while ignoring the superior court’s summary judgment order — part of the record — containing Israel’s declaration placing those issues in October and November 2016, well before the injury. The WCAB faulted the absence of testimony from France’s direct supervisor Okhanes without acknowledging his 2019 deposition testimony, which was in the record and was the only testimony available given his death in 2022. Finally, the WCAB drew negative inferences from the lack of written documentation without addressing Barnett’s unrebutted explanation that emergency hires required no such documentation under the City Charter.

The court stressed that the WCAB was free to weigh evidence and make credibility determinations, but it was not free to simply ignore evidence that cut against its conclusions. Because the WCAB’s decision was not based on the entire record as required by Labor Code section 5952, the court annulled it under the standard set forth in Smith v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 530, 535 and ordered reinstatement of the original award following Redner v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 83, 97.