An employer may say that a job ended because the worker could no longer perform it. The worker may believe the real reason was the workers’ compensation claim. Those are different explanations, and the documents leading up to the decision matter more than either side’s label.
Louisiana prohibits certain employment decisions made because someone asserted a workers’ compensation claim. That protection does not guarantee a job for the entire recovery period. Disability-accommodation law may impose separate duties, so a review should address both the reason for the decision and the work the employee could perform.
What Louisiana’s claim-protection statute covers
R.S. 23:1361 prohibits refusing to hire an applicant because the applicant asserted a workers’ compensation claim. It also prohibits discharging an employee for asserting such a claim. The protection includes claims under Louisiana law, another state’s law, or federal law.
The statute preserves an employer’s ability to decline an applicant who does not meet the position’s qualifications. It also says that the workers’ compensation chapter does not prohibit discharge when an injury leaves an employee unable to perform the duties of the job. That provision does not erase separate obligations under other employment laws.
Section 1361 specifically addresses hiring and discharge. A disagreement about scheduling, workplace treatment, or a temporary assignment should not automatically be described as a violation of that section. The particular action and any other applicable law need to be identified.
Look closely at the stated reason for the decision
Preserve the termination letter, personnel notices already in your possession, relevant messages, and the work restrictions supplied to the employer. Keep the original files and dates. Do not access an employer’s system without permission or take confidential records belonging to coworkers.
A focused chronology can show what happened before the claim, when the employer learned of it, what work was offered afterward, and when the employment decision was made. Include unfavorable information, such as an earlier warning or a missed shift. Omitting it will not make the issue disappear.
Timing can raise a question, but a discharge following an injury does not by itself establish unlawful retaliation. Compare the employer’s explanation with the contemporaneous record. Did the explanation change? Was the cited restriction actually in the doctor’s note? Who made the decision, and what did that person know? Record exact statements when remembered, distinguishing a quotation from your interpretation.
No Fees Unless We Recover25+ Years Experience$100+ Million Recovered for Clients
Know Your Rights After Filing a Claim
Understand what your employer can and cannot do after a claim.
A return-to-work offer needs more than a job title
Ask for the proposed duties, hours, location, and physical demands. Give that description to the treating physician so the restrictions can be compared with the work. A position called “light duty” may still involve lifting, driving, prolonged standing, or repetitive tasks that need medical assessment.
Workers’ compensation law does not automatically require every employer to create a light-duty position. It also does not follow that every offered assignment is suitable. Keep the written offer and your response, and obtain advice before rejecting work or assuming that acceptance will resolve every benefits issue.
Our article on the first days after a work injury discusses getting accurate restrictions and communicating them. A separate article on workers’ compensation benefit delays explains why the payment history and work-status record should be reviewed together.
Disability accommodation is a separate inquiry
The EEOC’s disability-discrimination guidance explains that the Americans with Disabilities Act generally covers employers with at least 15 employees. A qualified employee with a covered disability may be entitled to reasonable accommodation, unless providing it would impose an undue hardship. The worker must be able to perform the job’s essential functions with or without accommodation.
A workers’ compensation claim does not answer each of those questions. The medical limitations, essential duties, employer coverage, available accommodation, and hardship analysis require their own review. Other state or federal protections may also apply under their separate requirements.
Tell the employer about the work adjustment needed because of the medical condition. The EEOC’s accommodation guidance explains that a request does not require special legal wording, although a written record is useful. The employer and employee should discuss the limitation and effective options. A possible accommodation is not an automatic entitlement to the worker’s preferred arrangement or to a newly created job.
Keep the employment claim separate from the benefits claim
For a hiring refusal or discharge that violates R.S. 23:1361, the statute provides a civil penalty measured by the earnings lost because of the violation, capped at one year’s earnings, together with reasonable attorney fees and court costs. It does not list reinstatement as a remedy under that section. Other laws may provide different relief when their requirements are satisfied, and section 1361 also addresses consequences for frivolous claims.
The forum matters. R.S. 23:1310.3 expressly excepts section 1361 from the workers’ compensation judge’s general exclusive-jurisdiction provision. Do not assume that filing an ordinary disputed-benefits form also presents or preserves the employment claim. Have the proper forum and each filing deadline assessed separately.
A workers’ compensation and return-to-work review should start with the employer’s stated reason, the actual restrictions, and the communications surrounding the decision. Bring any separation agreement or release before signing it. The question is what claim the evidence supports and where it must be pursued, not whether every unfavorable workplace decision can be called retaliation.
Sources checked: September 29, 2026. Last reviewed: September 28, 2026.