Imperial v. Hunt, S163577

Interest: prejudgment interest: labor law: the issue in Currie was whether an employee was entitled to prejudgment interest in an award for backpay under Labor Code section 132a, which makes it unlawful to wrongfully deny an employee reinstatement because of an industrial injury.  (Currie, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1111.)  We held that nothing in Labor Code section 132a expressly or impliedly precludes prejudgment interest.  (Currie, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1116.)  Because the Legislature was silent as to the availability of prejudgment interest, we determined that the intent of Labor Code section 132a was to make employee victims of discrimination whole, at least to the extent of their lost wages.  (Currie, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1117.)  We reasoned that “without prejudgment interest the backpay remedy may lose a significant portion of its value, and the employee left less than fully ‘reimbursed’ (§ 132a, par. (1)) for his or her lost wages.”  (Currie, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1117.)  Accordingly, we concluded that “the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board may and must, when the criteria of Civil Code section 3287 are met, add to its awards reimbursing employees for lost wages and work benefits interest from the dates such wages and benefits would have become due had the employer not acted in violation of Labor Code section 132a.”  (Cal. S. Ct., 10.08.09, Imperial v. Hunt, S163577).

Intérêts en droit du travail californien : si l’employeur refuse à tort de reprendre à son service un employé qui a été victime d’un accident, il doit lui payer le salaire rétroactif et autres prétentions financières dues, intérêts compris. Les intérêts sont dus malgré le silence de la loi à ce sujet, le but du législateur étant d’indemniser complètement l’employé lésé. Les intérêts sur des sommes dues avant jugement sont donc accordés.