Good point! IANAL also, but I read a bit about this and got the following[1]:
> Ultimately, the WCAB emphasized that it was the “work condition that must be uncommon, unusual, or totally unexpected” in order to qualify as an extraordinary employment condition
So, I wonder if by rejecting the claim, Uber is claiming that whatever work conditions Thomas was facing is normal. I wonder if the converse is also true, that accepting the claim also means Uber claims that his work conditions were actually unusual.
I imagine this would. E evaluated by a judge and or a reasonable standard clause. We don't tolerate domestic abuse in the home so maybe those concepts extend to the workplace.
> Ultimately, the WCAB emphasized that it was the “work condition that must be uncommon, unusual, or totally unexpected” in order to qualify as an extraordinary employment condition
So, I wonder if by rejecting the claim, Uber is claiming that whatever work conditions Thomas was facing is normal. I wonder if the converse is also true, that accepting the claim also means Uber claims that his work conditions were actually unusual.
[1] http://pknwlaw.com/Newsletters/2015/Q1/2-LC3208.html