Decision 1323E – Ventura County Community College District
LA-CE-3829
Decision Date: April 8, 1999
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: District flied exceptions to Board agent’s proposed decision finding that the District violated EERA when it issued a disciplinary letter to an employee in retaliation for his attendance at a grievance meeting.
Disposition: Dismissed charge and complaint. District’s actions were consistent with written policy and would have been the same even without protected activity.
Perc Vol: 23
Perc Index: 30094
Decision Headnotes
300.05000 – Grievances
The filing and pursuit of grievances is an activity protected by the EERA; p. 10.
501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
In order to state a prima facie case for retaliation, a charging party must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the employee engaged in activity protected by the EERA; (2) the employer knew of said acitivity; and (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee because of the activity. However, the absence of any element of the prima facie case requires the Board to dismiss the allegation; pp. 8-9.
505.01000 – In General
Where coworkers and supervisor had expressed fear of employee, employee had recently pled no-contest to spousal abuse charges, dean had observed employee's anger and frustration during meeting, Board found that employee's behavior, rather than protected activity, motivated college dean's decision to issue memorandum recommending evaluation of employee; pp.10-11.
505.02000 – Demand by Union or Fellow Employees; Intraunion and Rival Union Disputes
Where coworkers and supervisor had expressed fear of employee, employee had recently pled no-contest to spousal abuse charges, and college dean had observed employee's anger and frustration during meeting, Board found that employee's behavior, rather than protected activity, motivated college dean's decision to issue memorandum recommending psychiatric evaluation of employee; pp. 10-11.
505.03000 – Misconduct
Where coworkers and supervisor had expressed fear of employee, employee had recently pled no-contest to spousal abuse charges, and college dean had observed employee's anger and frustration during meeting, Board found that employee's behavior, rather than protected activity, motivated college dean's decision to issue memorandum recommending psychiatric evaluation of employee; pp. 10-11.
505.11000 – Legitimate Business Purpose/Business Necessity
Where coworkers and supervisor had expressed fear of employee, employee had recently pled no-contest to spousal abuse charges, and college dean had observed employee's anger and frustration during meeting, Board found that employee's behavior, rather than protected activity, motivated college dean's decision to issue memorandum recommending psychiatric evalution of employee; pp. 10-11. Where college began investigation into employee's fitness for duty prior to employee's protected activity and relied on outside assessment of employee's potential for violence in ordering psychiatric evaluation, Board found that employee's protected activity did not motivate college's decision to place employee on administrative leave pending psychiatric evaluation; pp. 11-12.