Question not identified

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Question One: In Franco v. MV Transportation, Inc., 2019 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 120 the panel held that injured workers may make a prima facie showing of unlawful discrimination even where they cannot demonstrate a singling out for disadvantageous treatment, so long as they show some adverse result as a consequence of some action : or inaction by the employer that was triggered by the industrial injury, and that they a legal right to receive or retain the deprived benefit or status and the employer had a corresponding legal duty to provide or refrain from taking away that benefit or status. Does Franco extend to any cases decided after under Cal. Lab. §132a? Question Two: In the case Alnimri v. Southwest Airlines and the Appeals Board panel’s Opinion and decision after reconsideration issued on July 31, 2019 the defendant's failure to follow its own voluntary process to resolve conflicting medical reports prior to dismissing Alnimri from work was conduct that subjected Alnimri to disadvantages not visited upon other employees. It was an act of unlawful discrimination under section 132a. Does Alnimri extends to any case decided after under Cal. Lab. §132a? Question Three: In Villegas v. Six Flags Entm’t Corp., 2018 Cal. Super. Lexis 7680 The court granted the ex parte application and determined that the statutory 5-year period to bring this case to trial under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 expired on August 23, 2018. The trial did not take place before that date, nor did plaintiff request that a trail be set before that date. Therefore, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2 583.310, 583.340 and 583.360, this case is dismissed. The Court found that it was not impracticable, impossible, or futile to bring this case to trial within the 5-year period at any time. The Court also found that Plaintiffs Andrew Villegas, Jennifer Gilmore, Dustin Liggett, and Hans Gundelfinger did not satisfy their burden of establishing a causal connection between any alleged circumstances of impossibility, impracticability, or futility and Plaintiffs’ failure to bring the case to trial within 5 years. Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint is mandatory. Does Villegas extend to the company, an employer, and defendant under Cal. Lab. Code § 132a? Question Four: Whether a pro se petitioner should be allowed to produce the date of the filing of the EEOC or District Court original filing? . 3