All notes for Subtopic 501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2865E | Mt. San Jacinto Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Except for cases involving alleged facial discrimination, PERB considers a charging party’s discrimination or retaliation claim under the framework set forth in Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato) and its progeny. (San Diego Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2634, p. 12 & fn. 6.) Under the Novato framework, the charging party’s prima facie case requires each of the following four elements: (1) one or more employees engaged in activity protected by a labor relations statute that PERB enforces; (2) the respondent had knowledge of such protected activity; (3) the respondent took adverse action against one or more employees; and (4) the respondent took the adverse action “because of” the protected activity, which PERB interprets to mean that the protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. (City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 26; City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2712-M, p. 15.) If a charging party establishes a prima facie case of retaliation, and the evidence also reveals a non-discriminatory reason for the employer’s decision, the respondent may prove, by a preponderance of the evidence as an affirmative defense, that it would have taken the exact same action even absent protected activity. (Ibid.) (pp. 17-18.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 15 | 06/28/23 |
| 2855E | The Accelerated Schools 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a charging party has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) one or more employees engaged in activity protected by a labor relations statute that PERB enforces; (2) the respondent had knowledge of such protected activity; (3) the respondent took adverse action against one or more of the employees; and (4) the respondent took the adverse action “because of” the protected activity, which PERB interprets to mean that the protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. (City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2712-M, p. 15.) If the charging party meets its burden to prove each of these factors, certain fact patterns nonetheless allow a respondent the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have taken the exact same action even absent protected activity. (Ibid.) This affirmative defense is most typically available when, even though the charging party has proven that protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action, the evidence also reveals a non-discriminatory motivation for the same decision. (Id. at pp. 15-16.) In such “mixed motive” or “dual motive” cases, the question becomes whether the adverse action would not have occurred “but for” the protected activity. (Id. at p. 16.) An employer’s affirmative defense naturally overlaps with the nexus question. (State of California (Correctional Health Care Services) (2021) PERB Decision No. 2760-S, p. 21.) (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 47 | 139 | 03/17/23 |
| 2804E | South Orange County Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of retaliation sufficient to support issuance of a complaint, a charging party must allege facts showing that: (1) one or more employees engaged in activity protected by a labor relations statute that PERB enforces; (2) the respondent had knowledge of such protected activity; (3) the respondent took adverse action against one or more of the employees; and (4) the respondent took the adverse action “because of” the protected activity, which PERB interprets to mean that the protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 46 | 111 | 01/28/22 |
| 2761M | County of San Joaquin 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case PERB uses one of two tests in assessing discrimination cases. When the conduct at issue is not facially discriminatory, PERB applies the framework set forth in Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 (Novato) and its progeny. (Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (2018) PERB Decision No. 2610-H, p. 76; Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C, pp. 14-15.) To establish a prima facie case under the Novato framework, a charging party must prove four elements: (1) one or more employees engaged in activity protected by a labor relations statute that PERB enforces; (2) the respondent had knowledge of such protected activity; (3) the respondent took adverse action against one or more of the employees; and (4) the respondent took the adverse action “because of” the protected activity, which PERB interprets to mean that the protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. (City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 26.) If the charging party has established a prima facie case but the evidence also reveals a non-discriminatory reason for the employer’s decision, the respondent has the burden to prove that it would have taken the exact same action even absent protected activity. (Ibid.) In such “mixed motive” or “dual motive” cases, the question becomes whether the adverse action would not have occurred “but for” the protected activity. (Ibid.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 92 | 04/12/21 |
| 2761M | County of San Joaquin 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case PERB uses one of two tests in assessing discrimination cases. If an employer’s conduct facially discriminates based on protected activity, that is “discrimination in its simplest form,” and PERB may infer unlawful discrimination without further evidence of motive. (Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C, p. 14 (LA Superior Court).) Common examples of facial discrimination include: (1) providing different pay, benefits, or other working conditions based explicitly on union membership or other protected activity; or (2) changing policies in response to protected activity where the operative comparison is not between two different groups of employees, but between an employer’s policies before and after the exercise of protected rights. (Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2632-M, p. 40 (Contra Costa); City of Yuba City (2018) PERB Decision No. 2603-M, pp. 10-11.) Thus, the conduct at issue may, but need not, involve disparate conduct toward different employee groups. (Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) (2018) PERB Decision No. 2610-H, p. 81; LA Superior Court, supra, PERB Decision No. 2566-C, p. 15.) Although inherently destructive conduct and facial discrimination do not always equate to one another, the same conduct can meet both standards, and in such circumstances the employer’s affirmative defense is the same under the two standards. (See, e.g., Contra Costa, supra, PERB Decision No. 2632-M, pp. 36 & 40.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 92 | 04/12/21 |
| 2666E | San Diego Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case The evaluation of evidence under the Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 framework, i.e., the interplay between the charging party’s burden to establish nexus and the respondent’s burden to prove an affirmative defense, “is less formulaic than it may appear.” (Internal citation omitted.) The essence of the Novato test is to determine whether the employer acted for a discriminatory reason. To make this determination, we weigh the evidence supporting the employer’s justification for the adverse action against the evidence of the employer’s unlawful motive. As a result, the outcome of a discrimination or retaliation case ultimately is determined by the weight of the evidence supporting each party’s position. (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 55 | 08/27/19 |
| 2760S | State of California (Correctional Health Care Services) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the charging party has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) one or more employees engaged in activity protected by a labor relations statute that PERB enforces; (2) the respondent had knowledge of such protected activity; (3) the respondent took adverse action against one or more of the employees; and (4) the respondent took the adverse action “because of” the protected activity, which PERB interprets to mean that the protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. (City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2712-M, p. 15.) If the charging party meets its burden to establish each of these factors, certain fact patterns nonetheless allow a respondent the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have taken the exact same action even absent protected activity. (Ibid.) This affirmative defense is most typically available when, even though the charging party has established that protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action, the evidence also reveals a non-discriminatory motivation for the same decision. (Id. at pp. 15-16.) In such “mixed motive” or “dual motive” cases, the question becomes whether the adverse action would not have occurred “but for” the protected activity. (Id. at p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 91 | 04/12/21 |
| 2747M | City of San Diego 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the charging party has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) one or more employees engaged in activity protected by a labor relations statute that PERB enforces; (2) the respondent had knowledge of such protected activity; (3) the respondent took adverse action against one or more employees; and (4) the respondent took the adverse action “because of” the protected activity, which PERB interprets to mean that the protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. (City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2712-M, p. 15 ) If the charging party meets its burden to establish each of these factors, certain fact patterns nonetheless allow a respondent the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have taken the exact same action even absent protected activity. (Ibid.) This affirmative defense is most typically available when, even though the charging party has established that protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action, the evidence also reveals a non-discriminatory motivation for the same decision. (Id. at pp. 15-16.) In such “mixed motive” or “dual motive” cases, the question becomes whether the adverse action would not have occurred “but for” the protected activity. (Id. at p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2704H | Regents of the University of California 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To demonstrate that an employer has discriminated or retaliated against an employee in violation of the Act, the charging party must show: (1) the employee exercised rights under HEERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights, meaning that protected activity was at least a motivating or substantial reason for the adverse action. If a charging party proves each of these elements, a respondent may still prevail by proving that it also had a non-discriminatory reason and would have taken the same actions based solely on that reason, even absent any protected activity. (pp. 14-15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 158 | 04/14/20 |
| 2671E | Lake Elsinore Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To demonstrate that an employer discriminated or retaliated against an employee in violation of Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) section 3543.5, subdivision (a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. The charging party has the initial burden of demonstrating the “because of” element, that is, a causal connection or “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct. Because “retaliatory conduct is inherently volitional in nature,” evidence of unlawful motive is the specific nexus required to establish a prima facie case. (pp. 5-6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 72 | 09/27/19 |
| 2675E | Lake Elsinore Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case that an employer has discriminated or retaliated against an employee in violation of EERA section 3543.5, subdivision (a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the employee’s exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the adverse action because of the exercise of those rights. (p. 7.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 78 | 10/17/19 |
| 2692M | City of South Pasadena * * * Remedial Order VACATED and MODIFIED by City of South Pasadena (2021) PERB Decision No. 2692a-M 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case * * * Remedial Order VACATED and MODIFIED by City of South Pasadena (2021) PERB Decision No. 2692a-M. * * *To demonstrate that an employer discriminated or retaliated against an employee in violation of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), a charging party must prove that: (1) the employee exercised rights under the MMBA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. (p. 10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 131 | 01/30/20 |
| 2699H | Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Under HEERA, nonexclusive representatives, i.e., employee organizations not certified as exclusive representatives, have standing to allege violations of the rights of employees they represent. (p. 8.) Although HEERA does not grant them the independent right to represent employees, employees have a statutory right to representation by employee organizations of their own choosing. Nonexclusive representatives thus may assert employees’ rights on their behalf, including their rights to be free from discrimination, interference, or retaliation. (pp. 5-8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 144 | 02/27/20 |
| 2712M | City and County of San Francisco 1500.01000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; EDUCATION CODE; In General 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Absent evidence that a respondent took action that was facially or inherently discriminatory, a charging party has the burden to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by proving, via a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) one or more employees engaged in activity protected by a labor relations statute that PERB enforces; (2) the respondent had knowledge of such protected activity; (3) the respondent took adverse action against one or more employees; and (4) the respondent took the adverse action “because of” the protected activity, which PERB interprets to mean that the protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. (p. 15.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 173 | 05/06/20 |
| 2694M | City of Glendale 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case PERB generally analyzes allegations of employer reprisal and discrimination under two lines of cases, which can be distinguished primarily by the manner in which they permit the charging party to prove nexus. (San Diego Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2634, p. 12, fn. 12; County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2629-M, p. 8.) Under Campbell Municipal Employees Assn. v. City of Campbell (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 416, 423-424, a charging party may establish “discrimination in its simplest form” via evidence of “employer conduct that is facially or inherently discriminatory, such that the employer’s unlawful motive can be inferred without specific evidence.” (Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C, p. 14.) In the absence of evidence sufficient to trigger the Campbell standard, PERB applies the Novato analysis of nexus factors. (Los Angeles County Superior Court, supra, at pp. 14-15.) The Novato factors have undoubtedly become the primary avenue for proving discrimination or retaliation allegations, and PERB relies on them where, as in this case, the employer’s conduct is not inherently discriminatory and neither party argued that the adverse action was discriminatory on its face under Campbell and its progeny. (County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2629-M, pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 135 | 02/03/20 |
| 2694M | City of Glendale 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the charging party has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) one or more employees engaged in activity protected by a labor relations statute that PERB enforces; (2) the respondent had knowledge of such protected activity; (3) the respondent took adverse action against one or more employees; and (4) the respondent took the adverse action “because of” the protected activity, which the Board has interpreted to mean that the protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. If the charging party meets its burden to establish each of these factors, certain fact patterns nonetheless allow a respondent the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have taken the same action even absent protected activity. This affirmative defense is most typically available when, even though the charging party has established that protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action, the evidence also reveals a non-discriminatory motivation for the same decision. In such “mixed motive” or “dual motive” cases, the question becomes whether the adverse action would not have occurred ‘but for’ the protected activity. (NLRB v. Transportation Management Corporation (1983) 462 U.S. 393, 395-402; McPherson v. PERB (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 293, 304; Martori Brothers Distributors v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 721, 729-730; San Diego Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2634, pp. 12-13; Omnitrans (2010) PERB Decision No. 2121-M, pp. 9-10; Los Angeles County Superior Court (2008) PERB Decision No. 1979-C, p. 22; Palo Verde Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 689, pp. 7-8; Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, pp. 5-6; Wright Line (1980) 251 NLRB 1083, 1086-1089.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 135 | 02/03/20 |
| 2635Ma | City of Santa Monica 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the charging party has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) one or more employees engaged in activity protected by a labor relations statute that PERB enforces; (2) the respondent had knowledge of such protected activity; (3) the respondent took adverse action against one or more employees; and (4) the respondent took the adverse action “because of” the protected activity, which PERB has interpreted to mean that the protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action. If the charging party meets its burden to establish each of these factors, certain fact patterns nonetheless allow a respondent the opportunity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have taken the same action even absent protected activity. This affirmative defense is most typically available when, even though the charging party has established that protected activity was a substantial or motivating cause of the adverse action, the evidence also reveals a non-discriminatory motivation for the same decision. In such “mixed motive” or “dual motive” cases, the question becomes whether the adverse action would not have occurred ‘but for’ the protected activity. (NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp. (1983) 462 U.S. 393, 395-402; McPherson v. PERB (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 293, 304; Martori Brothers Distributors v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 721, 729-730; San Diego Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2634, pp. 12-13; Omnitrans (2010) PERB Decision No. 2121-M, pp. 9-10; Los Angeles County Superior Court (2008) PERB Decision No. 1979-C, p. 22; Palo Verde Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 689, pp. 7-8; Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, pp. 56; Wright Line (1980) 251 NLRB 1083, 1086-1089.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 125 | 01/22/20 |
| 2634E | San Diego Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case PERB generally analyzes allegations of employer reprisal and discrimination under two lines of cases, which can be distinguished primarily by the manner in which they permit the charging party to prove nexus. (County of Santa Clara (2019) PERB Decision No. 2629-M, p. 8.) Under Campbell Municipal Employees Assn. v. City of Campbell (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 416, 423-424 (Campbell), a charging party may establish “discrimination in its simplest form” via evidence of “employer conduct that is facially or inherently discriminatory, such that the employer’s unlawful motive can be inferred without specific evidence.” (Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C, p. 14.) In the absence of evidence sufficient to trigger the Campbell standard, we apply the Novato analysis of nexus factors. (Los Angeles County Superior Court, supra, at pp. 14-15, citing Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, pp. 5-6 (Novato).) The Novato factors have undoubtedly become the primary avenue for proving discrimination or retaliation allegations. Board relies on them where, as here, the employer’s conduct is not inherently discriminatory and neither party argued that the adverse action was discriminatory on its face under Campbell and its progeny. (County of Santa Clara, supra, PERB Decision No. 2629-M, pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 156 | 03/22/19 |
| 2647E | Los Angeles Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case When a school district involuntarily displaces teachers in connection with its decision to create a magnet school, the Board will evaluate the district’s motivations under the traditional test for discrimination set out in Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 197 | 06/12/19 |
| 2654E | Claremont Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of the EERA, the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under EERA, (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights, (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee, and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. (p. 13.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 24 | 07/10/19 |
| 2622E | Cabrillo Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To demonstrate that an employer has retaliated against an employee in violation of the EERA, the charging party must prove that: (1) he exercised rights under the EERA; (2) the District had knowledge of his exercise of those rights; (3) the District took adverse action against him; and (4) the District took the adverse action because of his exercise of those rights. (p. 6.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 126 | 02/04/19 |
| 2611M | County of Orange 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Retaliation is demonstrated where: (1) the employee exercised statutory rights under a PERB-administered statute, (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights, (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee, and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. If the charging party proves all of the elements of its case, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to establish that it had an alternative, non-discriminatory reason for taking the adverse action, and that it, in fact, acted because of this proffered reason and not because of the employee’s protected activity. (pp. 14, 18-19.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 101 | 12/19/18 |
| 2637S | State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) (Service Employees International Union Local 1000) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To demonstrate that an employer has discriminated or retaliated against an employee in violation of Dills Act section 3519, subdivision (a), the charging party must show: (1) the employee exercised rights under the Dills Act; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. (p. 12) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 164 | 04/17/19 |
| 2642M | City of Sacramento 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case In determining whether an employer’s action is adverse, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. (Chula Vista Elementary School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2586, pp. 24-25.) “The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee found the employer’s action to be adverse, but whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment.” (Id. at p. 25, quoting Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 864, pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 179 | 05/01/19 |
| 2586E | Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights protected by EERA; (2) the employer knew of the employee’s exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the adverse action because of the employee’s exercise of those protected rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E | Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Where an employer’s words or actions reveal that the employer took adverse action against an employee in response to his or her protected activity, such conduct serves as direct evidence of an unlawful motive connecting the protected activity and adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2630E | Adelanto Elementary School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the Educational Employment Relations Act, the charging party must prove that: (1) the employee exercised rights under the Act; (2) the employer had knowledge of the employee’s exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the adverse action because of the employee’s exercise of those rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 147 | 03/01/19 |
| 2629M | County of Santa Clara 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To demonstrate that an employer has discriminated or retaliated against an employee in violation of MMBA sections 3506 and 3506.5 and PERB Regulation 32603, subdivision (a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. (Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, pp. 6-8; County of Yolo (2009) PERB Decision No. 2020-M, p. 10.) If the charging party establishes a prima facie case that protected activity was a motivating factor for the adverse action, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that it would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected conduct. (Novato, supra, PERB Decision No. 210, p. 14; Yolo, supra, PERB Decision No. 2020-M, p. 17.) (p. 7) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 145 | 02/27/19 |
| 2624S | State of California (Department of Social Services (Service Employees International Union Local 1000) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the Dills Act, the charging party must prove that: (1) the employee exercised rights under the Act; (2) the employer had knowledge of the employee’s exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the adverse action because of the employee’s exercise of those rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 128 | 02/05/19 |
| 2603M | City of Yuba City 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case If an employer has engaged in conduct that is facially or inherently discriminatory, i.e., discrimination in its simplest form, the employer’s unlawful motive can be inferred without specific evidence. The employer bears the burden of justifying such conduct by coming forward with a legitimate business justification. On the other hand, if the employer’s conduct is not facially or inherently discriminatory, the charging party must prove the employer’s unlawful motive under Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 90 | 12/12/18 |
| 2603M | City of Yuba City 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No prima facie case of inherently discriminatory conduct where the employees were treated less favorably than those in other bargaining units because their exclusive representative rejected the more favorable proposals accepted by other units. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 90 | 12/12/18 |
| 2566C | Los Angeles County Superior Court 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Where differently treated employees were not similarly situated, there is no prima facie case under Campbell Municipal Employees Association v. City of Campbell (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 416. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 1 | 06/12/18 |
| 2563E | Napa Valley Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case The “but for” test is how PERB assesses the employer’s affirmative defense once a charging party has established a prima facie case of retaliation. It is irrelevant to the analysis of a prima facie case. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 154 | 05/25/18 |
| 2566C | Los Angeles County Superior Court 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case A prima facie case is established under Campbell Municipal Employees Association v. City of Campbell (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 416 by “discrimination in its simplest form,” i.e., employer conduct that is facially or inherently discriminatory, such that the employer’s unlawful motive can be inferred without specific evidence. Under this standard, allegations that an employer has treated two groups of employees differently are neither necessary nor sufficient, disapproving State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (2011) PERB Decision No. 2106a-S. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 1 | 06/12/18 |
| 2567E | Hartnell Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case The Board adopted the ALJ’s finding that the Charging Party had failed to prove that the ultimate decisionmaker responsible for terminating Charging Party’s employment knew of Charging Party’s protected activity. (p. 9.) To prevail in a case alleging retaliation under Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210 and similar authorities, the charging party must prove that at least one of the respondent’s agents responsible for taking adverse action knew of the charging party’s participation in protected activity. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 2 | 06/12/18 |
| 2567E | Hartnell Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case The Board denied Charging Party’s exception which asserted that the ALJ had improperly failed to consider evidence that the employer’s decisionmaker had received biased, inaccurate or incomplete information from a subordinate, which influenced the decision to take adverse action against Charging Party. The exception included no citation to the record and did not identify any specific evidence that was neglected. ERB Regulation 32300 requires the party filing exceptions to: (1) state the specific issues of procedure, fact, law or rationale to which each exception is taken; (2) identify the page or part of the decision to which each exception is taken; (3) designate the portions of the record relied upon; and (4) state the grounds for each exception. (PERB Reg. 32300.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 2 | 06/12/18 |
| 2450E | Jurupa Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Prima facie case for retaliation is established when charging party shows; (1) the exercise of rights guaranteed by EERA; (2) employer’s knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; (4) the employer acted because of the employee’s exercise of protected rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 46 | 08/31/15 |
| 2453E | Cabrillo Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of EERA section 3543.5(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights guaranteed by EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the employee’s exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took action against or adverse to the interest of the employee; and (4) the employer acted because of the employee’s exercise of the guaranteed rights. Where the employer’s motive is the central issue, the fact finder must often rely heavily on circumstantial evidence and inferences. Only rarely will there be probative direct evidence of the employer's motivation. An illegal purpose harbored by a discriminating employer may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the adverse action. These may include anti-union animus exhibited by the employer or its agents; the pretextual nature of the ostensible justification; or other failure to establish a business justification. In such cases, the Board is free to draw inferences from all the circumstances, and need not accept an employer’s self-serving declarations of intent, even if they are uncontradicted. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 57 | 09/17/15 |
| 2391H | Trustees of the California State University (East Bay) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Invoking the procedures and protections of a CBA by filing grievances and participating in grievance meetings pursuant to the CBA is protected activity. Filing unfair practice charges under HEERA and any of the other statutes PERB administers, and participating in PERB processes, are protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 39 | 09/02/14 |
| 2337E | Palo Verde Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of EERA section 3543.5(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights guaranteed by EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the employee’s exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took action against or adverse to the interest of the employee; and (4) the employer acted because of the employee’s exercise of the guaranteed rights. Unlawful motive is the specific nexus required in the establishment of a prima facie case of retaliation. Direct proof of motivation is rarely possible, since motivation is a state of mind which may be known only to the actor. Thus, unlawful motive can be established by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the record as a whole. Our statutes protect the right of at-will and probationary employees to engage in protected activity and to be free of discrimination or retaliation therefor. more or view all topics or full text. | 38 | 69 | 10/29/13 |
| 2381E | Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of EERA section 3543.5(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights guaranteed by EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the employee’s exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took action against or adverse to the interest of the employee; and (4) the employer acted because of the employee’s exercise of the guaranteed rights. (Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210.). more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 12 | 06/27/14 |
| 2283E | Jurupa Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case A prima face case of retaliation is established by allegations that the employee engaged in protected activity, the employer knew thereof, the employer took action against or adverse to the interest of the employee, and the employer acted “because of” the employee’s protected activity. The motive (“because of”) element is established by direct proof or inferred from the record as a whole. An inference of unlawful motive, i.e., the “nexus” between the protected conduct and the employer’s challenged action, may be found in facts which suggest an unlawful motive, including suspicious timing, disparate treatment, departure from established policies and procedures, and employer justifications which are exaggerated, inadequate, inconsistent or contradictory. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 58 | 08/21/12 |
| 2278E | San Bernardino City Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charge alleging violation of EERA based upon failure to reclassify and pay teacher according to certificated salary schedule fails to establish prima facie case of discrimination, where alleged protected conduct took place at least four years after district took position that employee was not entitled to credit on salary schedule for years of experience as substitute. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 36 | 07/11/12 |
| 2279M | County of Santa Barbara 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Further factual detail in amended charge cured weaknesses of initial charge regarding alleged retaliatory change in job duties and increased scrutiny. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 49 | 08/09/12 |
| 2231M | Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Where charge alleged that respondent removed a negotiated provision of the expired memorandum of understanding relating to union access rights and eliminated the Union Time Bank in retaliation for the filing of grievances by unit members, the charge stated a prima facie case of discrimination/retaliation for having engaged in protected activities. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 111 | 01/20/12 |
| 2302H | Regents of the University of California 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case In assessing the evidence presented in a retaliation case, PERB’s task is to determine whether the employer’s true motivation for taking the adverse action was the employee’s protected activity. PERB weighs the employer’s justifications for the adverse action against the evidence of the employer’s retaliatory motive. Once PERB determines that the employer did not take action for an unlawful reason, its inquiry is at an end; PERB has no authority to determine whether adverse action not motivated by protected activity was just or proper. PERB does not determine whether the employer had just cause to take adverse action, nor whether it was correct in its determination that the employee engaged in misconduct. Although there was direct evidence that the employer was motivated in part by employee’s protected activity in deciding to take adverse action, employer established that it would have taken the same action even if employee had not engaged in the protected activity. The evidence further failed to establish that the employer’s true motivation in deciding to suspend and terminate employee was based upon his protected activity rather than on its expressed concerns over his behavior in the workplace. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 149 | 12/21/12 |
| 2258M | County of San Diego 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charge failed to allege facts establishing: who made decision to transfer employee; whether that person had knowledge of employee’s protected activities; whether involuntary transfer was an adverse employment action; or nexus between protected activities and decision to transfer. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 169 | 04/26/12 |
| 2177H | Regents of the University of California (Irvine) * * * Overruled by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (2019) PERB Decision 2632-M 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case * * * OVERRULED by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2632-M, where the Board held that an employer who automatically and pre-emptively excludes union-represented employees from an otherwise negotiable benefit granted to unrepresented employees, unlawfully discriminates and interferes with protected rights. * * *To establish a prima facie case under the Campbell discrimination standard, the charging party must show that the employer engaged in conduct which could have harmed employee rights to some extent. Granting a benefit only to non-represented employees does not establish discrimination absent additional facts showing either: (1) the employer suggested employees would lose a benefit if they engaged in protected activity; or (2) the benefit could not be obtained through collective bargaining. No prima facie case when charging party failed to show that employer had rejected bonus proposals or indicated that bonus was not obtainable through collective bargaining. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 70 | 03/29/11 |
| 2174M | County of Contra Costa 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charge failed to establish that decision to eliminate part-time public health nurse positions and lay off charging party was part of a “strategically orchestrated” plan to terminate charging party’s employment, where charge failed to establish that person or persons responsible for terminating interdepartmental contract and recommending budget cuts had any knowledge of charging party’s protected activity in filing grievances against her supervisor or acting as union steward. While it is conceivable that employees in the personnel department had knowledge of employee’s protected activities, charge failed to allege facts demonstrating any of the established “nexus” factors and therefore failed to alleged any facts that would support a finding that the decision to hire two full-time employees, the elimination of all part-time positions, or the denial of charging party’s request to fill in temporarily for another employee were motivated by employee’s protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 67 | 03/25/11 |
| 2106Sa | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C, where the Board clarified that under Campbell Municipal Employees Association v. City of Campbell (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 416, a charging party may establish “discrimination in its simplest form” via evidence of “employer conduct that is facially or inherently discriminatory, such that the employer’s unlawful motive can be inferred without specific evidence.” In the absence of evidence sufficient to trigger the Campbell standard, PERB applies the Novato analysis of nexus factors.* * *The discrimination/retaliation standard set forth in Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, applies when an employer is alleged to have taken an adverse action against an individual employee because of the employee’s participation in protected activity. The discrimination standard set forth in Campbell Municipal Employees Assn. v. City of Campbell (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 416, applies when the employer is alleged to have discriminated between two groups of employees because one of the groups participated in protected activity. To establish a prima facie case under the Campbell standard, the charging party must show that the employer engaged in conduct which could have harmed employee rights to some extent. The employer’s provision of lower cost dental benefits to non-union member employees established a prima facie case of discrimination against employees who exercised their right to join the union. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 59 | 03/01/11 |
| 2167M | Antelope Valley Hospital District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charge fails to allege facts demonstrating that employer knew that charging party “promoted” a labor organization or any facts establishing a causal connection between charging party’s protected activity and employer’s insistence that he sign a last chance agreement. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 47 | 02/25/11 |
| 2129E | Sacramento City Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Prima facie case established when charge alleged that school district removed substitute teacher from active substitute list five weeks after several grievances were settled in his favor; the district administrator who handled the grievances also controlled the substitute list; and the district exaggerated the incident cited as the reason for his removal from the list. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 134 | 09/03/10 |
| 2124E | Los Angeles Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case In order to establish a violation of EERA section 3543.5(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained, or coerced the employees because of the exercise of those rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 118 | 08/04/10 |
| 2118S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Although certain communications with an employer taken on behalf of unit employees may be considered protected activity, an employee’s communication with the employer is for his/her own benefit is not protected. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 102 | 06/15/10 |
| 2099I | Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee, et al. 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case In order to establish a prima facie violation of the Court Interpreter Act section 71802(c)(3), the charging party must establish that: (1) an independent contractor was afforded lesser duties or more favorable working conditions than an employee interpreter was (or would have been) afforded; and (2) the employer applied the disparate treatment for the purpose of discouraging independent contractors from applying for pro tempore interpreter jobs. With regard to the second element, the charging party must show a substantial disparity in the duties or working conditions between employee interpreters and independent contractors, plus some other factual circumstances that suggest unlawful motive. Such facts may include, but are not limited to, the employer’s departure from established procedures and standards, evidence that the employer actively discouraged interpreters from applying for pro tempore employment, or other facts that might demonstrate the employer’s unlawful motive. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 53 | 02/25/10 |
| 2121M | Omnitrans 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Prima facie case of retaliation established because employer fired employee in part for absences on days when employee was conducting union business. Employer established affirmative defense that it would have fired employee absent protected activity because denials of union business leave were based on legitimate operational need and absences for failure to report for work on days when leave was denied, along with days absent for personal reasons and days for which employee failed to properly request union leave, were sufficient to support termination under parties’ MOU. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 110 | 06/25/10 |
| 2024S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To demonstrate a violation of Dills Act section 3519(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under the Dills Act; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained, or coerced the employees because of the exercise of those rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 86 | 05/13/09 |
| 1983M | Menlo Park Fire Protection District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case In order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation under the MMBA, the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (4) the employer took the action because of the exercise of those rights. The unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation because the facts alleged were insufficient to establish a nexus between the alleged adverse action and the employee’s protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 158 | 10/28/08 |
| 2075M | City and County of San Francisco 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charge failed to state prima facie case of discrimination/retaliation because, even if employer’s closure of employee’s grievances was an adverse action, the charge did not allege facts establishing that closure was motivated by employee’s protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 186 | 11/04/09 |
| 1963E | Los Angeles Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Payroll errors due to implementation of new payroll system, without more, do not state a prima facie claim of retaliation. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 103 | 06/18/08 |
| 2061E | Oakland Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Supervisor who initiated termination by informing personnel officer of employee's absence, did not know of employee's protected activity. However, the personnel officer who signed and issued the termination notice knew of the protected activity. As the personnel officer was a participant in the decision to issue the disciplinary action, the "knowledge" element is established. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 153 | 09/10/09 |
| 2057E | San Francisco Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charge alleging District retaliated against teacher for complaining to union and contacting other teachers about issuance of “Principal’s Expectations” memorandum by sending disparaging emails failed to establish that principal or District knew about employee’s protected activities, or that statements in emails had any adverse impact on employee’s employment. In addition, charge failed to establish whether protected activity occurred before or after email communications. Therefore, charge failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 145 | 08/28/09 |
| 1995H | Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case University did not lay off employee in retaliation for union activities. While decision maker had knowledge of employee’s union activities, union animus held by employee’s supervisors is not imputed to decision maker, and layoff decision was not so economically indefensible that it must have been the product of unlawful motivation. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 25 | 12/19/08 |
| 1996M | Omnitrans 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Union did not establish retaliation based upon termination of employee two days after participating in negotiations. Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ MOU, the employer took the action based upon the employee having incurred ten charged absences in 12 months. The 10th incident occurred when the employee failed to provide 24-hour notice of request for union business leave, as required by established past practice and contract. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 26 | 12/19/08 |
| 2021E | Alvord Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case for retaliation because it failed to provide evidence demonstrating employer knowledge, failed to establish adverse employment action, and failed to provide evidence of nexus. Charging Party, a teacher, failed to provide evidence that a change in class teaching assignment and/or failure to provide certain educational resources, constituted an adverse impact on Charging Party’s employment. Additionally, the presence of a District supervisor at meetings where charging party engaged in protected activity was not sufficient to establish employer knowledge, where the supervisor was present in her capacity as a representative for the union and the charge failed to provide evidence to establish that the individual was an agent or representative of the District. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 76 | 04/30/09 |
| 2007E | Torrance Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Unfair practice charge failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation because it did not allege that charging party engaged in any activity protected by EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 51 | 03/09/09 |
| 1979C | Los Angeles County Superior Court * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563. * * *Even though the complaint characterized it as interference, allegation in the charge that the employer suspended the employee because of the employee’s protected activity should be analyzed under the discrimination standard. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 151 | 10/07/08 |
| 1971M | City of Torrance 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Reprisals constitute a prohibited form of discrimination under MMBA section 3506 and PERB Regulation 32603(a). more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 126 | 08/21/08 |
| 1838M | Sacramento Municipal Utility District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of MMBA section 3506 and PERB Regulation 32603(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under MMBA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced the employee because of the exercise of those rights. To establish a prima facie case for discrimination in violation of MMBA section 3506 and PERB Regulation 32603(a), the charging party must demonstrate a “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct. Although the timing of the employer’s adverse action in close temporal proximity to the employee’s protected conduct is an important factor, it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 117 | 05/10/06 |
| 1961S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the charging party must allege facts establishing that the charging party engaged in activity protected by the Dills Act, the respondent had knowledge of that activity, and the respondent took adverse action against the charging party because of the protected activity. No discrimination because participating in a contractual post and bid procedure is not protected activity under the Dills Act. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 101 | 06/17/08 |
| 1930E | Los Angeles Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Based on the Board’s finding that a teacher failed to demonstrate a nexus between his protected activity and the school district’s adverse actions, the Board did not address whether or not the District would have taken the same actions absent the teacher’s protected activity. No evidence that a teacher’s request that a school administrator be investigated for fraud was union activity or otherwise protected conduct. No doubt that charging party exercised rights under EERA, both by engaging in union activities and by filing his unfair practice charge. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 10 | 11/28/07 |
| 1924E | San Leandro Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To demonstrate a violation of EERA section 3543.5(a), the charging party must show that: (l) the employee exercised rights under EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced the employees because of the exercise of those rights. Thus, in order to establish a prima facie case, the charging party must demonstrate a “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 150 | 10/01/07 |
| 1920M | Jurupa Community Services District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case An employee’s termination is motivated by anti-union animus, when his supervisor attempted to talk him out of filing the grievance, suggesting that filing the grievance would be a waste of his time, found him "insubordinate" and stated that he had a "bad attitude" when he refused to follow his "advice" about not filing the 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 136 | 08/10/07 |
| 1893E | Lodi Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Protected activity followed by adverse action is not sufficient without nexus to establish a connection between the protected activity and the adverse action to show unfair practice. If adverse action is based on other conduct of charging party and not protected activity burden has not been met. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 76 | 03/20/07 |
| 1853H | Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case * * * OVERRULED ON OTHER GROUNDS by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C. * * *To demonstrate a violation of EERA section 3543.5(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced the employees because of the exercise of those rights. Thus, in order to establish a prima facie case, the charging party must demonstrate a “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 155 | 08/29/06 |
| 1880E | Oakland Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case A teacher’s letter complaining about student fights deemed protected activity under EERA, because the letter related to the conditions of his employment and he copied his union representative. The District retaliated against a probationary teacher when it issued him a notice of non-reelection. A teacher’s attendance at a mayor’s meeting which focused on issues affecting conditions of employment at the teacher’s school deemed protected activity under EERA. A teacher reasonably believed that his continued employment would be decided at a meeting, therefore his request for OEA representation was protected activity under EERA. A teacher’s participation on the School Climate and Leadership Committees, which discussed issues of safety, school violence and student discipline were protected activity under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 45 | 01/11/07 |
| 1866H | Trustees of the California State University (Humboldt) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charging party did not provide sufficient information that the University did not re-hire him due to protected conduct; he did not detail what positions he was denied as a result of his former employer’s alleged discriminatory motive. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 26 | 12/14/06 |
| 1849M | County of Santa Cruz 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charging party failed to allege nexus for layoff determination. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 151 | 08/16/06 |
| 1782C | Lake County Superior Court 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of section 71635.1 of the Trial Court Act and PERB Regulation 32603(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under the Trial Court Act; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced the employee because of the exercise of those rights. Although the timing of the employer’s adverse action in close temporal proximity to the employee’s protected conduct is an important factor, it does not, without more, demonstrate the necessary connection or “nexus” between the adverse action and the protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 7 | 11/01/05 |
| 1804H | Regents of the University of California 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charging Party must show protected conduct, that the employer knew of protected conduct and a nexus between the protected conduct and any adverse actions. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 44 | 01/04/06 |
| 1778E | Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Absent sufficient evidence to show that District departed from any established procedures or policies in eliminating position, there is no nexus between protected activity (union chapter president) and adverse action (decision to eliminate position and to lay off employee), to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination; pp. 2-3. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 167 | 10/06/05 |
| 1805E | Compton Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Protected activity followed by adverse action is not sufficient without nexus to establish a connection between the protected activity and the adverse action to show unfair practice. If adverse action is based on other conduct of charging party and not protected activity burden has not been met. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 50 | 01/05/06 |
| 1708M | County of Alameda 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Board dismissed charge where peace officer employee who was terminated for misconduct did not allege that she participated in any protected activities. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 12 | 11/16/04 |
| 1697H | Trustees of the California State University 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Cornelius did not state facts showing a nexus between her protected conduct (signing up for steward training) and the adverse actions (notice of termination and refusal to hire her for other positions). Rather, evidence shows that CSU approved her steward training and that Cornelius was terminated for misconduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 264 | 09/30/04 |
| 1702E | Berkeley Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Lavan did not state a prima facie case of discrimination since the alleged adverse action occurred before the protected activity. Lavan did not provide evidence of nexus; the District followed the proper procedures for issuing a letter of reprimand and did not engage in other conduct showing unlawful motive. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 5 | 11/05/04 |
| 1690S | State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charging Party must show protected conduct, that the employer knew of protected conduct and a nexus between the protected conduct and any adverse actions. Charge must include facts to show what actions occurred. Mere statement that there was a premeditated conspiracy is not sufficient. Charging party must allege “who what when where and how” of charge.(see State of California (Dept. of Food and Agriculture)(1994) PERB Decision No. 944. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 254 | 09/17/04 |
| 1680S | State of California (State Personnel Board) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case PERB has recognized that it is an unfair practice for an employer to prosecute a baseless lawsuit with the intent of retaliating against employees for their exercise of protected rights. In these cases, the lawsuit must be both objectively baseless and subjectively motivated by an unlawful purpose. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 224 | 08/20/04 |
| 1668E | Los Angeles Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Board adopted proposed decision dismissing complaint where charging party failed to prove that employer had knowledge of protected activities. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 215 | 07/28/04 |
| 1671E | Fullerton Elementary School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Protected activity followed by adverse action is not sufficient without nexus to establish a connection between the protected activity and the adverse action to show unfair practice. If adverse action is based on other conduct of charging party and not protected activity burden has not been met. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 216 | 07/28/04 |
| 1655M | Marin County Law Library 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Activity must be protected activity and their must be a nexus with adverse action to establish a prima facie case of unfair labor practice. Where the activities of charging party were not protected activity, and no nexus was established with adverse action, there was no prima facie case established. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 195 | 07/02/04 |
| 1552E | Los Angeles Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495, where the Board held charging party need not allege facts demonstrating conduct or speech is a logical continuation of group activity, if acts can be reasonably characterized as representing oneself in employment relations. * * *Bailey’s complaints on her own behalf to a supervisor about a subordinate do not rise to the level of protected activity. This is distinguished from cases in which the Board found that an employee’s complaint concerned an issue impacting employees generally and thus, was protected. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 7 | 10/21/03 |
| 1529E | Oakland Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Once OEA stated a prima facie case of discrimination, the District’s defense that it would have placed Robinson on administrative leave regardless of his protected conduct is information that should be considered during the Board’s hearing process. Allegations comprising a defense to discrimination by the school district are properly considered during the Board’s hearing process, not during a consideration of whether sufficient evidence has been produced by the union to state a prima facie case. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 91 | 06/20/03 |
| I055M | County of San Joaquin (Health Care Services) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Injunctive relief granted where Board found reasonable cause to believe that employer suspended employee because he was union’s primary organizer. Timing of employee’s suspension during election period coupled with employer’s vague and ambiguous justifications for suspension established the nexus required for a prima facie case. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32109 | 09/05/01 |
| 1431E | Los Angeles Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No prima facie case of retaliation where only evidence of protected activity in the record consisted of contacting union regarding Notice of Unsatisfactory Conduct and where facts demonstrated termination was based on excessive absences and absent without leave status, not because of contact with union. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32061 | 04/30/01 |
| 1418E | Peralta Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Allegation that District failed to follow proper performance evaluation procedures without an indication that the alleged adverse action occurred close in time to any protected activities does not establish a prima facie violation of EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32037 | 02/26/01 |
| 1461E | Sacramento City Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case In order to demonstrate a violation of EERA section 3543.5(a), the charging party must show that: (1) the employee exercised rights under EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced the employees because of the exercise of those rights; p. 8, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32111 | 09/18/01 |
| 1331E | Pasadena Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case A charge which fails to demonstrate the requisite nexus between the adverse action and the charging party's protected activities does not state a prima facie violation of the EERA; p. 5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30118 | 05/13/99 |
| 1325E | Los Angeles Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charge must allege facts from which Board agent may infer improper motive for District's actions - mere assertions are insufficient; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30096 | 04/13/99 |
| 1323E | Ventura County Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case In order to state a prima facie case for retaliation, a charging party must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the employee engaged in activity protected by the EERA; (2) the employer knew of said acitivity; and (3) the employer took adverse action against the employee because of the activity. However, the absence of any element of the prima facie case requires the Board to dismiss the allegation; pp. 8-9. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30094 | 04/08/99 |
| 1303E | Coachella Valley Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case A charge which does not provide a clear and concise statement of the alleged retaliatory conduct by the employer does not state a prima facie violation of the EERA; p. 4, dismissal letter; p. 6, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30027 | 12/11/98 |
| 1283E | Los Angeles Community College District (Santoianni) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charging party's failure to establish a prima facie case of discrimination required that the charge be dismissed. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29155 | 09/15/98 |
| 1263H | Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case In order to prevail on a claim of retaliation, the charging party must establish that he engaged in protected activity, that the activity was known to the employer, and that the employer took adverse action because of such activity. The adverse action must involve actual, rather than merely speculative, harm; it must satisfy an objective, "reasonable man" standard considering the impact on the employee's conditions of employment; pp. 47-48. PERB has held that an "employee's right to engage in concerted activity may permit some leeway for impulsive behavior, which must be balanced against the employer's right to maintain order and respect." An activity loses its protected character, when the activity is "opprobrious, flagrant, insulting, defamatory, insubordinate, or fraught with malice"; p. 46. An employer may expect that employee activity be carried out in a fraught with malice"; p. 46. An employer may expect that employee activity be carried out in a more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29090 | 04/28/98 |
| 1255H | Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Once charging party has established an inference of unlawful motivation for an adverse action, the burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate that it would have taken the action despite the individual's protected activity; p. 45, proposed dec. Board rejects respondent's assertion that it would have taken the action in absence of employee's protected activity where respondent failed to present evidence demonstrating its rationale for discipline except for the disciplinary memorandum, itself, which was unsupported hearsay; pp. 50-51, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29066 | 03/20/98 |
| 1239H | Regents of the University of California (Harris) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No discrimination where charging party failed to allege protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29027 | 12/04/97 |
| 1228E | Little Lake School District (Garcia) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Where charge failed to allege that respondent had any knowledge of charging party's protected activity prior to taking adverse action or that any protected activity motivated the respondent's actions, charge failed to state a cause of action for discrimination under the EERA; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29008 | 11/13/97 |
| 1229E | Sulphur Springs Union Elementary School District (Garcia) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Where charge failed to allege that charging party participated in any protected activity prior to adverse actions or that any protected activity motivated the respondent's actions, charge failed to state a cause of action for discrimination under the EERA; p. 4-5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29009 | 11/13/97 |
| 1230E | Centinela Valley Union High School District (Garcia) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Where charge failed to allege that charging party participated in any protected activity prior to adverse actions or that any protected activity motivated the respondent's actions, charge failed to state a cause of action for discrimination under the EERA; p. 4-5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29010 | 11/13/97 |
| 1222E | Los Angeles Community College District (Mrvichin) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Nexus is not demonstrated by District failure to provide notice of appearance, failure to provide Level II response and denied grievance at Levels I and II; p. 3, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28162 | 10/01/97 |
| 1199S | California State Employees Association (Carrillo) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case The Board's analysis of discrimination and duty of fair representation under Dills is the same as under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28099 | 05/14/97 |
| 1192E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Summer) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To demonstrate a violation of EERA section 3543.5(a), the charging party must show: (1) the employee exercised rights under EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced the employee because of the exercise of those rights; p. 1, dismissal letter; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28072 | 04/09/97 |
| 1188H | Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case During the post-election, pre-certification period, the employer must exercise caution in making wage changes. The employer may not change wage rates to avoid a bargaining obligation after certification, but may make a change that is clearly justified by factors other than the pendency of the certification; p. 32. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28067 | 03/19/97 |
| 1139S | State of California (Department of Motor Vehicles) (Petrella) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case The charge does not present any facts which establish that the charging party had been engaged in any activities protected by the Dills Act; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 20 | 27045 | 02/21/96 |
| 1087H | Regents of the University of California (Costa) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case In order to prevail on a retaliatory adverse action charge, the charging party must establish that the employee was engaged in protected activity, the activities were known to the employer, and that the employer took adverse action because of such activity; p. 8, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 19 | 26065 | 03/01/95 |
| 1059E | Centralia School District (Burchell) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Restatement and application of Novato test to find no violation because no facts on nexus. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25144 | 09/28/94 |
| 1052E | Scotts Valley Union Elementary School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To prevail on a retaliatory adverse action charge the charging party must reestablish that the employee was engaged in protected activity, the activities were known to the employer, and the employer took adverse action because of such activity; p. 16. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25115 | 08/24/94 |
| 0963E | Apple Valley Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charge dismissed because it did not contain a "clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute a Novato violation; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24020 | 12/07/92 |
| 0957E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Kaady) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or reprisal, the charging party must show that he engaged in conduct that is protected activity within the meaning of EERA; p. 18, proposed dec.; that the employer have actual or imputed knowledge of the protected conduct; p. 19, proposed dec.; that a nexus exists. Various factors have been employed to determine unlawful motivation in reprisal cases including statements of, or indicating such motive, are strong indications thereof. (Santa Clara Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 104; p. 20, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 17 | 24000 | 11/18/92 |
| 0954S | State of California (Franchise Tax Board) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Source of information that employer has discriminated against or interfered with a employee's exercise of protected activity deemed irrelevant to the determination of harm. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23164 | 10/21/92 |
| 0885E | San Diego Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Protected activity which occurs after the adverse action can not be used to establish a prima facie case. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22103 | 06/14/91 |
| 0879E | San Diego Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Negligence accusation, without more, does not state a prima facie violation of EERA section 3543.5(a); p. 3, Dismissal Letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22088 | 05/21/91 |
| 0872H | Regents of the University of California (Einheber) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Elements of Novato test stated; Employee fails to show he engaged in protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22064 | 03/21/91 |
| 0869H | California State University, Hayward (Dees) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish violation of section 3571(a), charging party bears the burden of showing that employee engaged in protected activity, that the employer knew of the activity, and that the protected activity was a motivating factor in the transfer; p. 20, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22051 | 02/25/91 |
| 0864E | Newark Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To establish violation of section 3543.5(a), charging party bears the burden of showing that employee engaged in protected activity, that the employer knew of the activity, and that the protected activity was a motivating factor in the transfer decision; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22023 | 01/14/91 |
| 0856E | Elk Grove Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charging party did not plead prima facie case of discrimination since she did not plead facts alleging she engaged in protected activity; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22009 | 12/17/90 |
| 0858H | Regents of the University of California (Smith) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To demonstrate retaliation, a charging party must show that (1) the employee exercised statutory rights; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those rights; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained or coerced the employee because of the exercise of those rights; Warning letter, p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22011 | 12/17/90 |
| 0851E | Los Angeles County Office of Education 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case To demonstrate a prima facie case of a violation of EERA section 3543.5(a) the charging party must allege facts which, if proven, would establish: (1) the employee exercised rights under the EERA; (2) the employer had knowledge of the exercise of those right; and (3) the employer imposed or threatened to impose reprisals, discriminated or threatened to discriminate, or otherwise interfered with, restrained, or coerced the employee because of the exercise of those rights; p. 2. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21215 | 11/14/90 |
| 0845H | California State University, Fresno 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charging party must prove: (1) the employee engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer had knowledge of such protected activity; and (3) adverse action was taken against the employee as a result of such protected activity; pp. 9-10. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21193 | 10/04/90 |
| 0846E | United Teachers - Los Angeles (Glickberg) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case PERB has no jurisdiction over a claim of age discrimination under EERA. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21204 | 10/30/90 |
| 0847E | Los Angeles Community College District (Hoodye) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case PERB has no jurisdiction over allegations of racial discrimination and harassment against the District. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21205 | 10/30/90 |
| 0833E | Los Rios Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case The necessary element of adverse action is not alleged with facts indicating the employer simply refused to take an illegal action of carrying an employee's unstamped mail in contravention of U.S. Postal Regulations; p. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21160 | 08/10/90 |
| 0822E | Culver City Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Palo Verde test of harm (PERB Decision No. 689) is an objective one. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21134 | 06/27/90 |
| 0805H | Trustees of the California State University (Statewide University Police Association) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charging party must prove: (1) the employee engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer had knowledge of such protected activity; and (3) adverse action was taken against employee as a result of such protected activity; p. 22. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21090 | 04/17/90 |
| 0764E | Cupertino Union School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Protected activity occurring after the employer had decided to deny reemployment can not be motivating factor in dismissal; p. 37, proposed dec. Employee's act of seeking temporary contract for herself, without union assistance or in concert with others, is not protected activity under EERA; p. 45, proposed dec. Absent showing of nexus by charging party, burden of proof never shifts to employer to show that it would have taken action in absence of protected activity; p. 47, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20194 | 09/14/89 |
| 0748E | Los Angeles Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Unlawful motivation not present where employer followed customary practice in investigation of allegation of internal misfeasance and the necessary release of confidential information supplied by the charging party employee; pp. 18-20, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20145 | 06/28/89 |
| 0742E | Los Gatos-Saratoga School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Discrimination charges do not automatically give rise to a derivative interference violation; pp. 3-4, regional attorney warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20132 | 06/19/89 |
| 0719H | California State University, (United Professors of California) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No violation of HEERA section 3571(a) because no allegation that an employee was discriminated against because of the exercise of protected rights or that an employee asked for and was denied access to the factfinding report. more or view all topics or full text. | 13 | 20038 | 01/19/89 |
| 0701E | Campbell Union High School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No prima facie case where charging party fails to show nexus between protected activity (filing of grievance) and imposition of allegedly onerous condition. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19169 | 10/12/88 |
| 0689E | Palo Verde Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Prima facie case of discrimination requires a showing of adverse action, citing in part Wright Line. Objective test applied to determine whether Districts action result in an injury to the employee. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19121 | 06/30/88 |
| 0687E | Cottonwood Union High School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Inarticulated objections and silent reluctance do not constitute a "refusal" to commit unlawful activity - i.e., employer had no knowledge of employee's protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19115 | 06/27/88 |
| 0630E | Kern County Office of Education 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Unnecessary to consider business justification where no prima facie case established. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18133 | 07/14/87 |
| 0615H | Regents of the University of California (Yeary) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Party alleging unlawful discrimination has the burden of making a showing to support the inference that protected conduct was a motivating factor in the employer's decision to take adverse personnel action. Nexus may be established by circumstantial evidence. (Good discussion of nexus); pp. 16-17. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18060 | 03/03/87 |
| 0607H | California State University, Hayward 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Adverse unsafe work assignment within six weeks of filing grievance states a prima facie case, as does the allegations that the employer's representative walked out while grievant was still presenting testimony; p. 14. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18026 | 01/02/87 |
| 0599E | Los Angeles Unified School District and United Teachers Los Angeles (Wadsworth) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Dismissal proper when no nexus between alleged improper conduct and protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 11 | 18014 | 12/23/86 |
| 0584E | Anderson Union High School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No prima facie case where conduct typical of mgmt./union exchange during bargaining, where supervisor without knowledge that employee was union representative, where timing only basis, where failure to explain union right to participate, and where no nexus shown between sick leave and protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17153 | 08/29/86 |
| 0590H | California State Employees Association (Dees) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No prima facie case stated where no facts reflecting protected activity within prior six months submitted. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17162 | 09/25/86 |
| 0592E | Riverside Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No prima facie case after charging party's case in chief, where there is no evidence of any link between protected activity and adverse actions. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17171 | 10/10/86 |
| 0571E | Riverside Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Prima facie case of discrimination where involuntary transfer occurred shortly after protected activity and District had no pressing staffing needs. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17099 | 05/07/86 |
| 0572E | Cupertino Union Elementary School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Prima facie case found in allegation that employer's decision to layoff a group of employees is unlawfully motivated by the union activisim of some members of the group; retaliatory layoff would be unlawful as to the entire group. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17100 | 05/09/86 |
| 0562Ea | Riverside Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Dismissal for "false" facts in charge improper; facts alleged in charge must be assumed true. Dismissal proper where regional attorney receives supplemental, non- contradictory information during investigation which is not rebutted by charging party. Dismissal proper (no prima facie case) where no facts to raise an inference that protected activity was a causation factor in employer decision. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17103 | 05/16/86 |
| 0559H | California State University (San Francisco) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Reiteration of Novato standards; only those protected activities employer had knowledge of are properly considered. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17043 | 01/03/86 |
| 0562E | Riverside Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No prima facie case for "lockout" where employer locks office during lunch hour. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17050 | 01/24/86 |
| 0551S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Failure to allege sufficient protected activity or employer knowledge to establish nexus is fatal to discrimination charge; p. 2, dismissal letter; p. 3, warning letter. Membership in an employee organization and vague references to accomodation of others' protected activity is insufficient; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 10 | 17026 | 12/17/85 |
| 1953M | Carmichael Recreation and Park District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652. * * *Charging Party failed to prove that a park district discriminated against two employees because of their protected activity where the only factor raising an inference of unlawful animus is timing. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 69 | 04/17/08 |
| 1946E | San Mateo County Office of Education 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case The central dispute surrounds whether or not the charging party alleged sufficient facts to support the allegation that his employer’s reprimand was issued because of his protected conduct and thereby retaliation. Although the charging party established that his reprimand was issued close in time to his protected activity, he failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate other evidence of a nexus between his protected activity and the reprimand. The Board rejected an argument for disparate treatment when the charging party failed to present evidence about similarly situated employees. Charging party and another employee were not similarly situated employees as the other employee’s situation involved a grievance about rude behavior via a process that had not concluded, and the charging party’s situation involved discipline for behavior which was determined to have occurred. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 48 | 02/29/08 |
| 1757M | County of Colusa 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Where county employee alleged improper compensation for administering additional duties there was no prima facie case for lack of facts showing that charging party engaged in protected activity of any kind. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 101 | 03/08/05 |
| 1741H | Trustees of the California State University 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Board dismissed charge alleging unlawful racial discrimination as such allegations fall outside of PERB’s jurisdiction. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 64 | 01/26/05 |
| 1748E | Alum Rock Union Elementary School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Board dismissed charge alleging unlawful racial discrimination as such allegations fall outside of PERB’s jurisdiction. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 73 | 02/07/05 |
| 0534H | Regents of the University of California (Berkeley) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No prima facie case shown where most of protected activity not even proximate in time to dismissal and where no showing of unlawful motive. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16239 | 11/04/85 |
| 0510E | Riverside Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No nexus shown between alleged unfair act and protected conduct. Therefore fails to state prima facie case where employee denied personal necessity day off. No prima facie showing where conduct alleged does not state adverse action (placing CSEA letter in personnel file and reassigning employee). more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16156 | 06/21/85 |
| 0513E | Riverside Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No prima facie case stated where no adverse action taken and/or no nexus between protected activity and alleged adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16159 | 06/21/85 |
| 0514E | Los Angeles Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No prima facie case where no nexus between alleged protected activity and adverse action. No prima facie case where alleged employer conduct evinced anti-union sentiment but its weight was slight and insufficient to support an inference that adverse action was a result thereof. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16163 | 07/01/85 |
| 0516H | Regents of the University of California (San Francisco Medical Center) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No prima facie case where no nexus between alleged protected activity and adverse action shown. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16187 | 08/07/85 |
| 0505E | Santa Paula School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Lists elements of Novato test (No. 210) and applies to alleged improper, discriminatory transfer. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16128 | 05/07/85 |
| 0500E | Santa Clara Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case ALJ properly applied standards as enunciated in Novato No. 210. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16116 | 04/11/85 |
| 0492E | Sacramento City Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case There can be no unlawful retaliation if employer unaware of protected activity; animus not automatically imputed from supervisor to interview committee; committee unaware of both employee's protected activity and of animus of supervisor. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16094 | 03/06/85 |
| 0482E | Modesto City Schools and High School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No facts alleged which establish nexus between protected activity and adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16061 | 01/16/85 |
| 0445E | San Francisco Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Allegation that a public school employer and an exclusive representative settled a grievance involving another employee to detriment of the complainant fails to allege prima face case. There is no allegation of protected conduct or unlawful motivation. R.A. dismissal upheld. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16009 | 11/29/84 |
| 0448E | Los Angeles Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Allegation that a public school employer abused employees and denied charging party his constitutional rights fails to set out prima facie case of discrimination. Allegation that employer engaged in delays in processing grievance fails to allege that charging party was harmed. R. A. dismissal upheld. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16013 | 12/03/84 |
| 0421E | Sacramento City Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Allegation that complainant exercised protected right to union representation after which she was disciplined, fails to allege prima facie case. No allegation of nexus to link the harm to unlawful motivation. R.A. dismissal upheld. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15197 | 10/19/84 |
| 0423S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Allegation that charging party required to obtain medical release from doctor who had treated him before, fails to allege prima facie case of discrimination. Medical release requirements were imposed uniformly, regardless of employee participation in protected activities. R.A. dismissal upheld. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15204 | 10/24/84 |
| 0425E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Wightman) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Allegations against four gentlemen of school district found to be uniformly without merit. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15206 | 10/26/84 |
| 0426E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Wightman) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Allegation of participation in protected conduct, harm to employee and knowledge by employer does not state prima facie case. There must also be allegation of nexus. R.A. dismissal upheld. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15207 | 10/26/84 |
| 0412E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Wightman) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Allegation that four employees conspired to remove charging party through "callous, unethical, immoral, unjust, unprincipled and . . . illegal means" fails to state prima facie case. There is no allegation that charging party engaged in protected activity, that the employer was aware of this activity or that the employer imposed reprisals because of the protected conduct. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15179 | 10/04/84 |
| 0401E | Inglewood Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Under the Novato rule, the charging party alleging discrimination has the burden of showing that the protected conduct was a motivating factor in the employer's decision to take adverse personnel action; p. 42, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15154 | 08/29/84 |
| 0404E | Charter Oak Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Issuance of notice of intent to dismiss, close in time to filing of grievance is not sufficient, without more, to state prima facie allegation of discrimination. Coincidence in time is insufficient to prove unlawful motivation. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15162 | 09/06/84 |
| 0394S | State of California (Department of Consumer Affairs) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charging Party failed to allege a factual nexus between participation in protected conduct and his termination. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15143 | 08/10/84 |
| 0378S | State of California (Department of Developmental Services, Napa State Hospital) (Matta) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charging party failed to establish nexus between protected conduct and adverse action, as record did not show unequal enforcement of any progressive discipline with respect to charging party's discharge. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15039 | 02/15/84 |
| 0371E | Mammoth Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Even if any of teacher's activities could be viewed as protected, no evidence was presented which raised the inference that the teacher's protected activity was a motivating factor in the District's decision to impose discipline; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15015 | 12/29/83 |
| 0368E | San Diego Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Applying the Novato test, the Board found that the speech in question was protected activity and that circumstantial evidence established unlawful motive on the part of the District in refusing to ratify employment contract; p. 15. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15009 | 12/22/83 |
| 0362H | Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Dismissed for failure to state prima facie case under HEERA. Breach of a settlement agreement alone does not violate HEERA. Charging party failed to allege nexus (retaliation or interference) between employer's conduct and employee's exercise of HEERA rights. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15002 | 12/07/83 |
| 0328S | State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2017) PERB Decision No. 2539-M 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by County of Santa Clara (2017) PERB Decision No. 2539-M * * *Application of Novato. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14211 | 07/29/83 |
| 0251E | Coast Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Absent a finding of inherently destructive employer conduct, a finding of anti-union motive must be established; p. 23. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13237 | 10/15/82 |
| 0227E | Moreland Elementary School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Employer's knowledge of protected activity is an essential element. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13171 | 07/27/82 |
| 0211H | California State University, Sacramento 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Where employee and employee representative gave no advance notice of their visit, common standards of reasonableness dictate that employer is not required to instantly accommodate a request for copies of documents in employee's personnel file; p. 23. The standard for deciding alleged violations of HEERA subsection 3571(a) is equal to that applied to EERA subsection 3543.5(a) as expressed in Carlsbad Unified School District (1/30/79) PERB Decision No. 89, and in Novato Unified School District (4/30/82) PERB Decision No. 210, i.e., that a protected activity was a "motivating factor" in the employer's decision to engage in the complained of conduct; pp. 12-13. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13115 | 04/30/82 |
| 0210E | Novato Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case The NLRB and courts have generally considered employer discriminatory conduct to be covered by section 8(a)(3) of the NLRA, whereby it must be proven that the employee was engaged in protected activity and that the employer's conduct was motivated by that participation. Because retaliatory conduct is inherently volitional in nature, the same requirements are appropriate under EERA; pp. 5-6. Where the case revolves around the existence of both lawful and unlawful motives, the Board must determine whether the employer would have taken its action had the employee not engaged in protected activity; p. 16. Employer must have actual or imputed knowledge of the employee's protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13114 | 04/30/82 |
| 0141E | Cerritos Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No prima facie case where union activist, not rehired for part-time community college teaching job, failed to show nexus between his protected conduct and his loss of job. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11182 | 10/14/80 |
| 0127S | State of California (Department of Corrections) (California Correctional Officers Association) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Board held that section 3519(l) and 3543.5(a) parallel sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of NLRA and cases interpreting 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) may be used to interpret the Dills Act; p. 3, fn. 4. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11079 | 05/05/80 |
| 0117E | Grossmont Community College District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case No prima facie case for interference or discrimination where Union fails to show employees engaged in protected activity which resulted in their non-reelection; pp. 5-6, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 4 | 11043 | 03/19/80 |
| 0100E | Sacramento City Unified School District 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Board found that the Association stated a prima facie case of discrimination where it alleged that the District refused to pay employees personal necessity leaves because they were allegedly engaged in a work stoppage; pp. 2-3. more or view all topics or full text. | 3 | 10109 | 08/14/79 |
| 0022E | San Dieguito Union High School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89, and also OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles Unified School District (1983) PERB Decision No. 285 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Carlsbad Unified School District (1979) PERB Decision No. 89, where the Board held that intent to interfere with protected rights is not required to establish an interference violation under EERA section 3543.5(a). * * *Intent to discriminate required to find a violation of 3543.5(a). more or view all topics or full text. | 1 | 369 | 09/02/77 |
| 0949H | Regents of the University of California (Einheber) 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charging party must satisfy the elements of the Novato test in order to state a prima facie case of discrimination; p. 6, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23133 | 08/13/92 |
| 0913E | Monterey County Office of Education 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charging party failed to prove nexus between alleged protected activity and adverse action; p. 4, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23009 | 12/13/91 |
| 0065E | Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools 501.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case Charging party must prove by preponderance of the evidence that the respondent intended to discriminate or impose reprisals, or that such was the natural and probable consequence of the respondent's actions: unlawful intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence; p. 17, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 2 | 2171 | 08/16/78 |