Can a PPO terminate a guard for being injured?

Can a PPO terminate a guard for being injured?

• A. Yes, if the injury affects performance
• B. No, it is illegal to fire for being injured
• C. Yes, but only if they find a replacement
• D. No, unless there is clear misconduct

Answer: (B)

The answer indicating that it is illegal to fire an employee solely for being injured is grounded in employee protection laws. Under both federal and California state laws, it is illegal to discriminate against an employee for a disability or a work-related injury. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protect employees from being terminated due to their injuries. When an employee is injured, they may have rights to medical leave, reasonable accommodations, or to return to their position without facing adverse employment actions. Terminating someone simply because they are injured, particularly if the injury does not impair their ability to perform essential job functions, is not only unethical but also likely constitutes unlawful discrimination. In contrast, the other choices imply conditions under which a termination could be justified based on the injury itself, which does not align with the legal protections afforded to employees. The correct response reflects the importance of understanding these protections and ensuring that employee rights are upheld in circumstances involving workplace injuries.

The answer indicating that it is illegal to fire an employee solely for being injured is grounded in employee protection laws. Under both federal and California state laws, it is illegal to discriminate against an employee for a disability or a work-related injury. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protect employees from being terminated due to their injuries.

When an employee is injured, they may have rights to medical leave, reasonable accommodations, or to return to their position without facing adverse employment actions. Terminating someone simply because they are injured, particularly if the injury does not impair their ability to perform essential job functions, is not only unethical but also likely constitutes unlawful discrimination.

In contrast, the other choices imply conditions under which a termination could be justified based on the injury itself, which does not align with the legal protections afforded to employees. The correct response reflects the importance of understanding these protections and ensuring that employee rights are upheld in circumstances involving workplace injuries.