Long Beach Office:
444 W. Ocean Blvd.,
Suite 400
Long Beach
California  90802
(562) 432-8421

This site is best
viewed with

What's Politics Got To Do With It

In March of 1991, Eddie Jackson took part in restraining a person under the influence of PCP. Not surprising, he was injured. He kept on working. Eddie did not lose any time from work but did file a claim for injuries. His doctors recommended that he avoid heavy work and work in an environment free of emotional stress and strain.

The problem was that Eddie worked as a police security officer for the County of Los Angeles at their County/USC Hospital. Eddie's job description recognized that he was frequently exposed to groups and individuals who are hostile to each other and to any authority seeking to maintain law and order within the facility. Eddie was part of that authority. No question, his job was stressful.

Nonetheless, he did not lose any time from work. He kept on working.

Eddie received a permanent disability award equal to $48,618 paid at $148 per week over 328 weeks. In exchange, Eddie lost his job. The County determined that, since he could not do his former work, unless he was willing to take a lesser-paying job with a substantial loss in benefits, there was nothing more they could do for him.

Eddie filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This is a relatively recent law requiring employers to make reasonable changes in the work place to accommodate disabled workers to return to work as long as they are able to perform the essential functions of their job. An "essential" function of Eddie's job was that he be able to do heavy work (i.e., fight with the bad guys) and endure emotional stress and strain. So, Eddie not only lost his job, but he lost the ADA claim as well. If he had had the good sense to let someone else get hurt, he would still have his job. Does that sound fair?

What is the point of this story? The story is true, by the way. Eddie Jackson vs. County of Los Angeles (Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District), 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 1670. The point of this story is that both the Workers' Compensation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act are laws that were "intended" to protect the people who work for a living (like you and me). That's right, I am a lawyer, but I work for a pay check just like everyone else. If I cannot show up for work, there is no pay check. It's that simple.

On the other hand, if I were the owner or shareholder of a corporation or, in other words, if I were living off the backs of working people, I would still get my dividends, profit or rent, whether I was disabled or not.

So here we have two laws which appear to have been enacted to protect working people. On the surface, it looks like some lawmakers are trying to take care of us. On the other hand, Eddie Jackson was injured while trying to do his job, protecting the patients and staff of County/USC Hospital from a violent person. He is now out of a job and the $48,618 he received in weekly payments is not going to last him long or do him any substantial good when paid out at $148 weekly. What's wrong with this picture?

It is the Governor of this state who appoints the judges who interpret the laws that the State Assembly and Senate enact. The Governor also vetoes the acts that benefit working people, injured or not. If we expect to see fundamental fairness in the application of our laws, we need to have a Governor who will appoint judges who are not already committed to a pro-employer, insurance company agenda.

Do we get the feeling that it is the employer, not the injured worker, who is getting the protection? I can just hear each one of my four granddaughters telling me, "Duhhuh!"