EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DEFENSES – Other
Single Topic for Decision 2458E
Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text
505.13000 – Other
The District’s removal of negative evaluations and warning letter from charging party’s personnel files did not cure those adverse actions, because it was not an honestly given retraction. The District did not remove the challenged documents until several months after it issued them, and was not made in a manner that completely nullified the coercive effects of the earlier action. Although the District notified charging party that the offending documents would be removed from District files, the District then replaced the retracted documents with a new adverse action, viz., notification of a consecutive annual evaluation. The fact that a District official stated that the investigation has revealed no evidence of a violation of policy also fails the required factor that the retraction be unambiguous and specific in nature to the coercive conduct. Moreover, these documents were removed only after charging party filed a complaint with the District over her evaluations and following discussions with the union’s attorney. This fact, coupled with the fact that the District imposed a new adverse action and insisted that it engaged in no wrongdoing, suggests that the District was motivated solely by a desire to avoid further litigation over the issue, rather than by a sincere effort to retract a coercive statement or action.