|
GOOD FAITH PERSONNEL ACTION NOT SO RESTRICTIVE
In Ezra Centeno v. Harbor Freight Tools (2023)(88 CCC 618) the defense asserted the good faith personnel action defense since the applicant's complaints stemmed from verbal criticism of her job performance. The trial judge determined the applicant's psych injury claim was not barred by the good faith personnel action defense because of his belief the defense only applies to terminations or formal disciplinary actions.
In a panel decision, the WCAB overturned the trial judge per Larch v. Contra Costa County (1998)(63 CCC 831) which confirmed that "personnel actions" include not just firings and written reprimands but also broader conduct attributable to management in overseeing its business such as reviewing, criticizing, demoting, transferring, or disciplining employees.
Additionally, the WCAB noted the psych AME report and judge's decision failed to adequately address the required four-step process under Rolda v. Pitney Bowes(2001)(66 CCC 241) of discussing: 1) if actual events were involved, 2) if work caused +50% of the injury, 3) if the actual events were good faith personnel actions, and 4) whether good faith personnel actions were a substantial cause of the injury. Case remanded for further discovery
[COMMENT: Case is an important reminder of the types of actions that can fall under the good faith personnel action defense as well as the importance of psych med-legal reports adequately addressing the Rolda factors.]
| 
