In City of Anaheim v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 124 Cal. App. 3d 609 , the court declined to apply the provisions of section 132a to the admittedly discriminatory conduct of an employer occurring after the applicant had left the city's employment. The city had made disparaging remarks to the applicant's subsequent employer related to the applicant's pending claim, and this conduct became the object of a section 132a claim. The court explained: "The language of section 132a makes clear that what is prohibited is the discharge or threatened discharge of or any other manner of discrimination against an employee by his or her employer on account of the employee's having indicated an intention to file or having filed an application with the Board or on account of the employee's having received a rating, award, or settlement. The statute repeatedly and consistently refers to the 'employer' and the employee." (Id. at p. 614.) The City of Anaheim court found the statutory language to be unambiguous, and expressly rejected the argument that the declared statutory purpose and general policy considerations mandated a different result. Instead, the court concluded, "Clearly the statute contemplates an employer-employee relationship at the time of the discharge, threat of discharge or other discriminatory act." (Ibid.)