EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE, RESTRAINT, COERCION; EMPLOYER INTERFERENCE WITH, RESTRAINT, OR COERCION OF EMPLOYEES – In General; Standards

Single Topic for Decision 3018E

View all topics for Decision 3018E

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

Former employee’s charge did not state a prima facie case of interference or retaliation, where facts former employee had alleged would not establish that the employer’s lawsuit against him both lacked a reasonable basis and was filed for an unlawful purpose. (See, e.g., Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, AFL-CIO (Wagner et al.) (2021) PERB Decision No. 2782-M, pp. 8-10 [PERB applies a qualified litigation privilege based on the principles first set forth in Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Bd. (1983) 461 U.S. 731, requiring a charging party to show that allegedly unlawful litigation lacked a reasonable basis and was filed for an unlawful purpose].) The employer’s lawsuit alleged that former employee violated a settlement agreement by pursuing his PERB charge. Because the charge was protected activity, former employee adequately alleged facts that, if proven, would establish that the lawsuit constituted retaliation for protected activity. However, former employee did not alleged facts that would show the lawsuit was objectively baseless. (pp. 2, 6.)