EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS – Timing of Action

Single Topic for Decision 2865E

View all topics for Decision 2865E

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

If an employer takes adverse action shortly after an employee’s protected activities, this tends to suggest more strongly that the two are linked, and the inference of discrimination weakens as the gap in time grows. (City of Santa Monica (2020) PERB Decision No. 2635a-M, p. 45.) However, timing alone is typically not determinative, and there is no bright line rule for determining how close in time the protected activity must be to the alleged retaliatory conduct. (Id. at p. 46.) Thus, while a charging party typically needs more than just timing evidence to prevail, if the timing inference is weak a charging party will normally need to marshal a stronger array of other, non-timing facts. (Ibid.) Here, all of the adverse actions occurred within 2 months of protected activities, supporting a strong inference of nexus. (pp. 27-29.)