All notes for Subtopic 1405.02000 – Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2900M |
* * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * County of Santa Clara
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
The Board accepted an arbitrator’s relevant factual findings as true, where the arbitration decision was final and the parties to the arbitration were the same as in the matter before PERB. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.6 [“An award that has not been confirmed or vacated has the same force and effect as a contract in writing between the parties to the arbitration”]; see also JPV I L.P. v. Koetting (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 172, 192 [collecting cases on collateral estoppel effect of arbitration decisions]; State of California (Correctional Health Care Services) (2024) PERB Decision No. 2888-S, pp. 23-28 [discussing PERB’s application of collateral estoppel].) (pp. 4-5.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 169 | 04/23/24 |
| 2888S |
State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
While employees and unions often have a choice whether to pursue claims in multiple forums, if they choose to do so, collateral estoppel may apply as to subsidiary issues. (p. 25.) Collateral estoppel applied to certain factual findings of the State Personnel Board (SPB) but did not apply to the ultimate questions which SPB did not decide, viz. whether employee’s protected activity was a motivating or substantial factor in the decision to terminate him, or what state employer would have done in the absence of protected activity, which are critical questions in resolving a Dills Act retaliation claim. (Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 1987) 818 F.2d 1515, 1520 [even where collateral estoppel applies to prior decision finding employer issued discipline that was proportionate to proven misconduct, such a finding does not determine whether the employer would have exercised discretion in the same manner absent discrimination].) Accordingly, PERB does not presume whether the level of discipline SPB found warranted is the level the state employer would have issued absent the employee’s protected activity. (pp. 27-28.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 124 | 02/08/24 |
| 2888S |
State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
Collateral estoppel may apply to an administrative agency’s decision only if the agency acted in a neutral, judicial capacity to decide an issue over which it had jurisdiction. (Noble v. Draper (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1, 10; see also Healdsburg Union High School District (1997) PERB Decision No. 1185, adopting proposed decision at p. 51 [even assuming a third-party hearing officer was neutral, collateral estoppel cannot apply where hearing officer’s decision is subject to review by non-neutral entity, irrespective of whether that entity adopts the hearing officer’s decision].) Moreover, collateral estoppel is a discretionary doctrine that need not apply where application would fail to promote judicial or administrative economy, protect litigants from vexatious litigation, and/or otherwise preserve fairness and integrity in the administration of justice. (Castillo v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 477, 481 & 483.) (pp. 24-25.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 124 | 02/08/24 |
| 2888S |
State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services)
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
State Personnel Board (SPB) decision reviewing disciplinary action against a state employee did not have a claim preclusion effect on employee’s claim that the state retaliated against him for activity the Dills Act protects for multiple related reasons. First, Dills Act section 3514.5 grants PERB exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate claims that the state retaliated against an employee for activity the Dills Act protects, and SPB has no such jurisdiction. (Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown (1981) 29 Cal.3d 168, 197-198 (Pacific Legal Foundation).) Second, the court of appeal has repeatedly emphasized the exclusivity of PERB’s jurisdiction. (See McPherson v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 293, 311 [Legislature afforded PERB exclusive initial jurisdiction over all claims of discrimination based on union activity].) Third, the same types of considerations have led the court of appeal to reject claim preclusion arguments in a similar setting. (George v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1483-1485 [no claim preclusion where FEHA claim asserted a different primary right from employee’s claim before the SPB].) PERB’s jurisdiction to remedy unfair practice charges is independent of SPB’s jurisdiction. (State Personnel Bd. v. Fair Employment and Housing Com. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 422, 437-440 (FEHC) [citing Pacific Legal Foundation, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 197].) Accordingly, claim preclusion does not apply when PERB resolves a Dills Act discrimination charge after SPB has already issued a final decision as to whether the state had adequate cause to issue discipline. (pp. 21-23.) more or view all topics or full text. |
48 | 124 | 02/08/24 |
| 2231Ma |
Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
The Board rejected respondent’s argument that principles of collateral estoppel barred “relitigation” of issues decided by an arbitrator relating to the Union Time Bank because issues of discrimination/retaliation and interference in PERB proceeding do not involve same dispute as issue of contract violation in arbitration proceeding; moreover, even assuming the issues were identical, PERB is not obligated to give collateral estoppel effect to a decision by an arbitrator. more or view all topics or full text. |
36 | 185 | 05/23/12 |
| 2126E |
Grossmont Union High School District
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
A dismissal of an unfair practice charge based solely on a Board agent’s charge investigation does not have collateral estoppel effect in later PERB proceedings. Because the purpose of the investigation is not to decide the merits of a case but merely to determine whether a prima facie case is established, the investigation does not satisfy the “actually litigated” requirement for collateral estoppel. City of Porterville (2007) PERB Decision No. 1905-M overruled in part. more or view all topics or full text. |
34 | 121 | 08/13/10 |
| 1949H |
Trustees of the California State University
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
Judicial estoppel applies to prevent a party from asserting to a California Superior Court that a judgment has been satisfied and later complaining to PERB that the satisfaction of judgment did not comply with the order of the arbitrator. more or view all topics or full text. |
32 | 59 | 03/24/08 |
| 1649M |
County of San Joaquin (Health Care Services)
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
Board may take notice of prior decision involving same parties. However, each separate unfair practice complaint must be decided on the merit of its own record. more or view all topics or full text. |
28 | 187 | 06/29/04 |
| A132E |
Los Angeles Unified School District/Lynwood Unified School District
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
Litigation of whether two locals of a labor union are the "same" organization under section 3545(b)(2) is not barred by principle of collateral estoppel. Even where the party is the same and the issue was previously litigated, the rule is inapplicable. When the issue is a question of law rather than fact, the prior determination is not conclusive either if injustice would result or the public interest requires that relitigation not be foreclosed. more or view all topics or full text. |
6 | 13198 | 08/27/82 |
| 1185E |
Healdsburg Union High School District
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
Where District both presided over the disciplinary hearing and acted as a party to the action, disciplinary hearing lacked judicial character and the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply; p. 51, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. |
21 | 28055 | 02/24/97 |
| 1111E |
Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (Sander)
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of longevity pay grievance that was already decided in a prior PERB proceeding under application of 3-part test for collateral estoppel (citation); p. 20, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. |
19 | 26111 | 07/21/95 |
| 1080S |
State of California (Department of Youth Authority) (Janowicz)
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
Granting of motion for summary judgement is a final determination on the merits; p. 17, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. |
19 | 26038 | 01/12/95 |
| 0885E |
San Diego Unified School District
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
Merit System Hearing Officer's decision not given collateral estoppel where issue before the Board was unlawful discrimination and neither the transcript of the merit system proceeding nor the decision of the Merit System Hearing Officer reflect that the issue of retaliation for protected activities was fully litigated at that hearing. Also, since the ambiguity of the rules of the merit system in issue, as to whether the defense of retaliation for EERA protected activities COULD be raised in a dismissal proceeding, supports a conclusion that collateral estoppel should not apply to bar litigation of that issue before PERB on the ground it COULD have been raised; p. 40. Board notes that a verbatim record of the proceedings is a factor in determining the "judicial character" of the prior proceeding. more or view all topics or full text. |
15 | 22103 | 06/14/91 |
| 0581E |
Antioch Unified School District
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
Factual findings by ALJ in related proceeding which were not appealed to Board are binding. more or view all topics or full text. |
10 | 17137 | 06/30/86 |
| 0534H |
Regents of the University of California (Berkeley)
1405.02000: GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; RES JUDICATA; Type or Nature of Prior Proceeding
Arbitrator's decision not given collateral estoppel effect where issue before the Board was unlawful interference and that before the arbitrator was just cause for dismissal. more or view all topics or full text. |
9 | 16239 | 11/04/85 |