EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES – In General

Single Topic for Decision 1920M

View all topics for Decision 1920M

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

The District did not sustain its burden of showing that it would have discharged an employee in the absence of his filing a grievance, when it disciplined, but did not discharge another employee who participated in a physical altercation. An employee’s door slamming, making derogatory comments towards co-workers, not following the District’s sick leave policy, filing a travel grievance, making a false accusation, and getting into a physical altercation were all cited by the District as reasons for his termination. The Board finds these reasons, however, to be pretext, some exaggerated, some untrue, some pulled out of a hat, some based solely on hearsay, and all cited in an attempt to mask the true motivation for the discharge, i.e., the employee’s filing a grievance. The District’s argument that a supervisor’s anti-union animus should not be attributed to the District was rejected where the District relied on and accepted that supervisor’s recommendation which led to termination of the employee.