EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION – Lack of Knowledge of Protected Activity

Single Topic for Decision 1435S

View all topics for Decision 1435S

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

The State argued that there was no evidence to impute the knowledge of charging party's supervisors to the warden. In rejecting this argument, the Board found that the letter of reprimand itself cited a protected act as a key reason for the discipline. Unlawful animus may be imputed to high management officials where, even innocently, they rely on inaccurate and biased information of lower level management officials; pp. 31-32, proposed dec.