All notes for Subtopic 1101.04000 – Continuing Violation

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2697M County of Tulare (Service Employees International Union Local 521)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
A complaint included a facial challenge, as it alleged that the County violated the MMBA by “maintaining” the rule, which is a separate act from any alleged enforcement. A facial challenge may be brought at any time where a charging party would risk discipline or other adverse consequences if it were to violate the rule. (City and County of San Francisco (2017) PERB Decision No. 2536-M, pp. 14-15 & fn. 12.) more or view all topics or full text.
02/20/20
2691M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City and County of San Francisco
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
A charging party timely challenges a local rule by filing a charge within six months of any independent instance in which the employer has applied the rule, or, alternatively, at any time under the continuing violation doctrine, if a union or employee would risk an adverse consequence by violating the rule. Union’s challenge was timely under both theories. First, union risked an adverse consequence under the Charter’s penalty provision, should union have missed the submission deadline. Second, union filed its charge early in the negotiations cycle, just as the City was beginning to apply its Charter provisions. The new negotiations cycle qualified as an independent application of the Charter, which triggered a new statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text.
01/17/20
2538E San Diego Unified School District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Charging party’s subsequent application for summer school, having previously been informed she was ineligible, did not revive the statute of limitations. more or view all topics or full text.
424109/07/17
2536M City and County of San Francisco
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
No new wrongful act is required to trigger the statute of limitations where seeking to test an unreasonable rule would risk discipline. Memorandum to employees threatening to enforce a local rule constitutes a new wrongful act for statute of limitations purposes. more or view all topics or full text.
421406/30/17
2381E Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
The limitations period for a termination of employment or imposition of lesser discipline, commences on the date the termination or lesser discipline becomes effective, not on the earlier date on which an employer may provide an employee notice of its intention to terminate or impose the discipline. This policy recognizes that the question of whether a public employee may be terminated or disciplined is frequently subject to due process procedures under a collective bargaining agreement or memorandum of understanding, or under other regulatory or statutory procedures, and, consequently, there may be a significant delay between an employer’s announcement of the intent to terminate or discipline, and the parties’ ensuing completion of applicable due process procedures. Where a charging party timely alleges that an employer’s notice of intent to terminate or discipline is unlawful under our statutes, and thereafter, following utilization by the parties of due process procedures, the employer does in fact either terminate or discipline the employee, an amended charge alleging that the termination or discipline itself either was unlawfully motived or interfered with the exercise of employee rights, will be deemed to relate back to the timely-filed charge. more or view all topics or full text.
391206/27/14
2243E Santa Monica Community College District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
PERB is prohibited from issuing a complaint in respect to any charge based upon an alleged unfair practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge; the limitations period begins to run once the charging party knows, or should have known, of the conduct underlying the charge; a charging party bears the burden of demonstrating that the charge is timely filed; where the charge alleged that the parties were required under the ground rules to sign off on tentative agreements as they were reached at the bargaining table, the union knew or should have known of the existence of a violation at the time each agreement was reached; because the charge alleged that the dates upon which the tentative agreements were reached were outside the statutory limitations period, the allegation that the college district violated the ground rules when it did not sign off on the tentative agreements when they were reached was time-barred; once the limitations period begins to run, it does not begin anew by making the same request and therefore the union’s subsequent request to sign off on the tentative agreements did not restart the limitations period; to establish a continuing violation, a charging party must show that there is some new violation, sufficiently independent of the original act, occurring within the limitations period; a continuing violation is not found where an employer’s conduct during the limitations period is simply maintaining the original position or action it took outside the limitations period; an alleged violation of ground rules requiring parties to sign off on tentative agreements when they are reached at the bargaining table is not in the nature of a continuing violation. more or view all topics or full text.
3613202/29/12
2273E Standard School District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
For the continuing violation doctrine to apply, the conduct alleged during the limitations period must be of the same type as that alleged outside the limitations period and must stand on its own as an unfair practice. Doctrine inapplicable to alleged refusal to negotiate over proposals sunshined at public meeting, where allegations did not state an independent unfair practice and conduct in seeking to negotiate is not of the same type as alleged violation of public notice requirements of EERA section 3547. Alleged adoption of initial proposals at public meeting did not revive earlier allegation that notice provided previously failed to comply with requirements of section 3547. more or view all topics or full text.
06/22/12
2155M County of Orange * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Santa Clara Valley Water District (2013) Decision No. 2349- M
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Under continuing violation doctrine, a violation within the statute of limitations period may ‘revive’ an earlier violation of the same type that occurred outside of the limitations period. The violation within the statute of limitations period, however, must constitute an independent violation without reference to the earlier violations. more or view all topics or full text.
352401/18/11
2176M County of Riverside
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
To establish a continuing violation, a charging party must demonstrate that the violation has been revived by subsequent unlawful conduct within the statutory limitations period. There is no continuing violation when the employer’s conduct during the limitations period constituted an unfair practice only by its relation to the original offense. No continuing violation when the employer’s refusals to register the employee organization under the employer’s local rules during the limitations period were merely reiterations of the position the employer took outside the limitations period. more or view all topics or full text.
356903/29/11
2157E Rio Teachers Association (Lucas)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Under the continuing violation doctrine, a violation within the statute of limitations period may “revive” an earlier violation of the same type that occurred outside the limitations period. However, the doctrine does not apply where the alleged unlawful conduct outside the limitations period consists of acts that are separate and independent from the timely allegations. In this case, each year in which the union failed to make available the required financial report constituted a separate and independent act. Therefore, a single timely allegation of the failure provide the financial report does not bring the allegations for the prior nine years within the continuing violation doctrine. more or view all topics or full text.
352701/21/11
2135S Service Employees International Union Local 1000 (Slotterbeck)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Allegations that union failed to honor non-member’s request to pay reduced fair share fee for two prior fiscal years were untimely because non-member knew, or should have known, when he received his first paycheck of each fiscal year that the union had not honored his request; the deduction of the full fair share fee on each subsequent paycheck did not extend the six-month statute of limitations under the continuing violation doctrine. more or view all topics or full text.
3414210/06/10
2127E Mount Diablo Education Association (Scott)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
In cases alleging a union’s breach of the duty of fair representation under a “pattern of conduct” theory, a violation may be established based on inaction that occurred more than six months before the charge was filed, provided the inaction was part of the same course of conduct as inaction within the statutory limitations period. more or view all topics or full text.
3412508/17/10
2086E Garden Grove Unified School District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Alleged pattern of retaliatory actions over a 2-1/2 year period does not establish a continuing violation, where charging party failed to establish that the employer’s actions within the statutory limitations period amount to a violation of EERA. While actions outside the statutory limitations period may not be considered as separate violations in the absence of an independent violation within the limitations period they may nonetheless be considered as background evidence of the employer's motive. In this case, however, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support a finding that employer’s evaluations and letters of concern issued prior to the statutory period demonstrate unlawful motivation. more or view all topics or full text.
342512/28/09
1973E Los Angeles City and County School Employees Union, Local 99 (Grove)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
The six-month statute of limitations was not extended under the continuing violation doctrine each time an employee’s union dues were deducted from the employee’s paycheck. more or view all topics or full text.
3213108/26/08
2038H Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Santa Clara Valley Water District (2013) PERB Decision No. 2349- M
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Under the continuing violation doctrine, a violation within the statute of limitations period may revive an earlier violation of the same type that occurred outside the limitations period. Continuing violation doctrine did not apply to alleged retaliatory actions that occurred more than six months before the charge was filed because no actions of the same type were taken by the employer within the limitations period. more or view all topics or full text.
3310606/11/09
2015E Compton Unified School District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Charge does not establish continuing violation. The fact that the district continued to maintain the position that the employees were exempt until they were reclassified, does not make the charge timely under a continuing violation theory. more or view all topics or full text.
336604/01/09
2011E Los Angeles Unified School District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Alleged acts of reprisal for protected activity that took place outside of the six (6) month statute of limitations were untimely. Where the untimely allegations were separate and independent from timely allegations, the continuing violation doctrine did not apply. more or view all topics or full text.
335503/13/09
1933H California Faculty Association (Chapman and Druzgalski)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
An unfair practice allegation may still be considered to be timely filed if the alleged violation is a continuing one. To establish a continuing violation, a charging party must demonstrate that the violation has been revived by subsequent unlawful conduct within the statutory limitations period. A continuing violation will not be found where the employer’s conduct during the limitations period constituted an unfair practice only by its relation to the original offense. more or view all topics or full text.
321512/21/07
1868M County of Orange
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
The Board has long recognized the continuing violation doctrine. However, a continuing violation will not be found where the employer’s conduct during the limitations period constituted an unfair practice only by its relation to the original offense. In other words, a continuing violation will only be found when the wrongdoer engages in active conduct (i.e., new wrongful act) within the limitations periods that independently constitutes an unfair practice. Thus, in order to invoke the continuing violation doctrine, the offending party must commit a new wrongful act, and this act must be timely challenged by the charging party. more or view all topics or full text.
312912/15/06
1681M City of Beverly Hills
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Board found untimely an unfair practice charge challenging a local agency rule adopted over 20 years prior. The fact that local agency rule was adopted during the tenure of a previous exclusive representative does not provide the current exclusive representative a new limitations period. more or view all topics or full text.
2822508/20/04
1650E Empire Union School District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Charging party’s discovery of the legal significance of underlying conduct does not excuse an otherwise untimely filing. (UCLA Labor Relations Division (1989) PERB Decision No. 735-H; California State Employees' Association (Darzins) (1985) PERB Decision No. 546-S.) To the extent Peralta Community College District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1281 suggest otherwise, it is overruled. more or view all topics or full text.
2818806/29/04
1559S State of California (Department of Corrections)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
PERB has recognized that for a continuing violation, new conduct independent of the original conduct must occur during the limitations period. An employee cannot show a continuing violation unless the nature of the responding party's conduct has changed. An employee's request for information regarding a grievance does not constitute a continuing violation. more or view all topics or full text.
281511/21/03
1585H Regents of the University of California
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Board adopts rule set forth in Romano v. Rockwell (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479, that where discrimination is alleged under HEERA, statute of limitations is triggered by effective date of termination, not the notice of termination; Regents of the University of California (1999) PERB Decision No. 1327-H is overruled. more or view all topics or full text.
286201/15/04
1553S California State Employees Association, Service Employees International Union Local 1000, AFL-CIO, Central Labor Councils (Sutton)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Statute of limitations for a charge alleging breach of the duty of fair representation is six months and is triggered on the date the employee, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, knew or should have known that further assistance from the union was unlikely. Charging party’s repeated requests for representation, in the face of steadfast refusals from the union, do not begin the limitations period anew. more or view all topics or full text.
28810/21/03
1531M City of Folsom
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Because the employee resigned (per the agreement) knowing that the City had not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement, the employee was aware on the date of resignation of the alleged infraction as of that date and the limitations period started to run. Subsequent failures by the City to honor the employee’s multiple requests to cure its violation do not restart the limitations period. more or view all topics or full text.
278906/20/03
1342E North Orange County Community College District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Filing of unprofessional conduct notice is not a continuing violation. more or view all topics or full text.
233015208/19/99
1343E United Faculty Association of North Orange County (Kiszely)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
The fact that arbitrator did not hear the issues the union took to arbitration does not support finding the DFT to be a continuing violation. more or view all topics or full text.
233015308/19/99
A270E Davis Teachers Association (Heffner)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Under the continuing violation theory even if the first act in a series was outside the period of timeliness, the underlying unfair practice may be revived by a subsequent act within the statutory period. But it is critical in allegations involving continuing violations that the subsequent act itself sets out a prima facie unfair practice; where the subsequent act is by someone not an agent of respondent, there is no prima facie case; p. 6, ALJ's order. more or view all topics or full text.
202700211/07/95
1302E Coachella Valley Federation of Teachers, California Federation of Teachers/American Federation of Teachers (Kok)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
When first amended charge does not name all the respondents named in original charge, then those parties omitted are no longer respondents. Unserved letters do not constitute amendments to the charge; fn. 1, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text.
233002612/11/98
1279S State of California (Departments of Personnel Administration, et al. * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Employer's continuing toleration for use of e-mail, fax and computers for non-business, non-union purposes while prohibiting non-business union use is a continuing violation for purposes of the interference allegation. more or view all topics or full text.
222914808/21/98
1244S State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (California Association of Professional Scientists)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
In case involving unilateral change in vision benefits, limitation period does not begin to run until Union was notified of change in benefits to employees; notice that State intended to award new vision service plan contract was insufficient; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text.
222904501/27/98
1181E Los Angeles Unified School District (Service Employees International Union Local 99)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Union's knowledge of drug policy, violation of which would subject an employee to dismissal, starts the statute of limitations period for a unilateral change even where the employer applies the policy as a "zero tolerance" policy and later dismisses an employee under the new zero tolerance policy. more or view all topics or full text.
212802512/10/96
1066S State of California (Consumer Affairs)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
A timely violation would not be found where the employer's conduct during the limitations period constituted an unfair practice based on a necessary relation to the original offense. In cases where there is a relation back to previous conduct, some new conduct which is sufficiently independent of the original offense is required that will revive the viability of the unfair practice; p. 5, warning letter. In the context of a unilateral change case, the first implementation of the policy commences the six-month period and subsequent occasions when employees are required to adhere to the policy, so long as it does not change, do not revive the violation; p. 5, warning letter. The employer's continued reliance on a "reprisal" file is not sufficiently independent of the original offense to constitute a separate violation; p. 5, warning letter. Although the employer continually updates the "reprisal" file with new separate violation; p. 5, warning letter. Although the employer continually updates the "reprisal" file with new independently offending conduct; p. 5, warning letter. The statute of limitations has been applied so as to prevent the charging party from engaging in a violation act which would create facts that might establish a new or independent violation within the six-month period; p. 6, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text.
192600911/08/94
1030E San Mateo County Community College District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Under San Dieguito Union High School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 194, a continuing violation occurs if the violation has been revived by subsequent unlawful conduct within the six months statute of limitations. The District's refusal to negotiate regarding released time was consistent and continuing throughout negotiations and impasse proceedings; p. 12, fn. 6. more or view all topics or full text.
182502712/28/93
0735H University of California Los Angeles Labor Relations Division (Napier’s Employment Security Agency)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
The University's response indicating no change in its position is not active conduct to amount to a "continuing violation;" p. 4, RA letter. more or view all topics or full text.
132009505/04/89
0694H Regents of the University of California (Waters)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
No continuing violation where employer's conduct during limitations period constitutes an unfair only by relation to the original offense. more or view all topics or full text.
121913707/26/88
0608E Long Beach Unified School District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Allegations that access regulations unreasonable, raised for first time in Association's response to motion to particularize (and filed 7 months after District's revision of regulations), were timely since charge raised allegations of continuing nature; p. 11. more or view all topics or full text.
111802901/07/87
0544E San Francisco Classroom Teachers Association, CTA/NEA (Chestangue)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Conduct alleged outside statute of limitation; no recurrence or revival of conduct within limitations period alleged. more or view all topics or full text.
101701612/13/85
1959E Sacramento City Teachers Association (Franz)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
A violation within the statute of limitations period may revive an earlier violation outside the limitations period if the violations are of the same type and the violation within the limitations period constitutes an independent unfair practice without reference to the prior violation. Charging Party failed to establish continuing violation because the alleged violations within the statute of limitations period were not of the same type as those outside of the limitations period. more or view all topics or full text.
328605/30/08
0522E Riverside Unified School District (Petrich)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Untimely; no continuing violation shown where employer unilaterally "shares" salary schedule in 1977, and continues change thereafter. more or view all topics or full text.
91621209/24/85
0497H California State Employees Association (Calloway)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Denial of subsequent request for representation not a continuing violation. more or view all topics or full text.
91610103/14/85
0447E Oakland Education Association (Mingo)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Duty of fair representation claim dismissed as untimely. The charge was filed more than six months after the first of two Charging Party requests that the union file a grievance on his behalf. The failure to file a grievance was not a continuing violation and the second request to the union did not restart the time period. more or view all topics or full text.
91601111/30/84
0382E El Dorado Union High School District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Board dismissed charge filed outside limitations period, rejecting ALJ's finding of continuing violation. Where underlying theory of charge is alleged unilateral change occurring outside limitations period, employer must engage in conduct during the limitations period such as reimplementation or subsequent refusal to negotiate to revive viability of unfair practice. Here, District did not reimplement or independently refuse to negotiate during the limitations period; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text.
81507704/23/84
0332E Reed District Teachers Association (Reyes)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Even if contract provision were considered continuing violation, range of discretion and latitude given to exclusive representative and absence of facts here showing conduct beyond reasonable latitude for arbitrary discriminatory or bad faith conduct, justify dismissal of charge. more or view all topics or full text.
71422408/15/83
0194E San Dieguito Union High School District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Even if a charge is filed outside the six-month statutory period, it may still be considered timely filed if the alleged violation is a continuing one, if the violation has been revived by subsequent unlawful conduct within the six-month period, or if the limitation period was tolled while the Association was diligently and reasonably pursuing alternative procedures for obtaining relief and other remedies; p. 5. Employer unilateral implementation of a sign-out policy is not a continuing violation each time a teacher is required to sign out. The focus of the inquiry is on the date the employer institutes policy change, not each time it is later enforced; pp. 5-10. more or view all topics or full text.
61306202/25/82
0978E Fresno County Office of Education
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Party failed to demonstrate that the Fresno County Office of Education had changed its original position of refusing to recognize an individual as a site representative. Therefore, no continuing violation existed; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text.
172405203/09/93
0089E Carlsbad Unified School District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Interference with employee rights ongoing, so union could wait until employees actually transferred to file charge rather than acting when transfer notice received; pp. 14-15. more or view all topics or full text.
31003101/30/79
0038E Azusa Unified School District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Rental arrangement constitutes continuing violation if it was effective during statutory period. more or view all topics or full text.
158711/23/77
0925E California School Employees Association (LaFountain)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Board affirms dismissal of alleged breach of DFR for lack of timeliness, also finding no continuing violation because the untimely violation was not revived by subsequent conduct. more or view all topics or full text.
162304903/10/92
0915E Compton Community College District
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
Denial of subsequent requests for retirement bonus does not constitute a continuing violation; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text.
162301212/20/91
0016E Pasadena Unified School District (Petrone)
1101.4000: CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE; Continuing Violation
No continuing violation where District placed letters in personnel file and refused to remove them. more or view all topics or full text.
111605/12/77