All notes for Subtopic 501.01000 – In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case

DecisionDescriptionPERC Vol.PERC IndexDate
2699H Regents of the University of California (Teamsters Local 2010)
501.1000: 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.
02/27/20
2712M City and County of San Francisco
1500.1000: MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES; EDUCATION CODE; In General 501.1000: 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.
05/06/20
2694M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City of Glendale
501.1000: 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.
02/03/20
2694M * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City of Glendale
501.1000: 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.
02/03/20
2635Ma * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * City of Santa Monica
501.1000: 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.
01/22/20
2634E San Diego Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
4315603/22/19
2647E Los Angeles Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
4319706/12/19
2654E Claremont Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
07/10/19
2622E Cabrillo Community College District
501.1000: 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.
4312602/04/19
2611M County of Orange
501.1000: 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.
4310112/19/18
2637S State of California (California Correctional Health Care Services) (Service Employees International Union Local 1000)
501.1000: 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.
4316404/17/19
2642M City of Sacramento
501.1000: 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.
4317905/01/19
2586E Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
501.1000: 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.
436009/28/18
2586E Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez)
501.1000: 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.
436009/28/18
2630E Adelanto Elementary School District
501.1000: 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.
4314703/01/19
2629M County of Santa Clara (Reese)
501.1000: 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.
4314502/27/19
2624S State of California (Department of Social Services (Service Employees International Union Local 1000)
501.1000: 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.
4312802/05/19
2603M City of Yuba City
501.1000: 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.
439012/12/18
2603M City of Yuba City
501.1000: 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.
439012/12/18
2566C Los Angeles County Superior Court
501.1000: 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.
43106/12/18
2563E Napa Valley Community College District
501.1000: 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.
4215405/25/18
2566C Los Angeles County Superior Court
501.1000: 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.
43106/12/18
2567E Hartnell Community College District
501.1000: 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.
43206/12/18
2567E Hartnell Community College District
501.1000: 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.
43206/12/18
2450E Jurupa Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
404608/31/15
2453E Cabrillo Community College District
501.1000: 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.
405709/17/15
2391H Trustees of the California State University (East Bay)
501.1000: 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.
393909/02/14
2337E Palo Verde Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
386910/29/13
2381E Monterey Peninsula Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
391206/27/14
2283E Jurupa Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
08/21/12
2278E San Bernardino City Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
07/11/12
2279M County of Santa Barbara
501.1000: 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.
08/09/12
2231M Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District
501.1000: 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.
3611101/20/12
2302H Regents of the University of California
501.1000: 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.
12/21/12
2258M County of San Diego
501.1000: 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.
3616904/26/12
2177H Regents of the University of California (Irvine) * * * Overruled by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (2019) PERB Decision 2632-M
501.1000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
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.
357003/29/11
2174M County of Contra Costa
501.1000: 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.
356703/25/11
2106Sa State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C
501.1000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
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.
355903/01/11
2167M Antelope Valley Hospital District
501.1000: 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.
354702/25/11
2129E Sacramento City Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
3413409/03/10
2124E Los Angeles Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
3411808/04/10
2118S State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
501.1000: 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.
3410206/15/10
2099I Region 2 Court Interpreter Employment Relations Committee, et al.
501.1000: 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.
345302/25/10
2121M Omnitrans
501.1000: 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.
3411006/25/10
2024S State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
501.1000: 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.
338605/13/09
1983M Menlo Park Fire Protection District
501.1000: 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.
3215810/28/08
2075M City and County of San Francisco
501.1000: 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.
3318611/04/09
1963E Los Angeles Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
3210306/18/08
2061E Oakland Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
3315309/10/09
2057E San Francisco Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
3314508/28/09
1995H Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles)
501.1000: 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.
332512/19/08
1996M Omnitrans
501.1000: 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.
332612/19/08
2021E Alvord Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
337604/30/09
2007E Torrance Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
335103/09/09
1979C Los Angeles County Superior Court * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Napa Valley Community College District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2563
501.1000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
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.
3215110/07/08
1971M City of Torrance
501.1000: 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.
3212608/21/08
1838M Sacramento Municipal Utility District
501.1000: 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.
3011705/10/06
1961S State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation)
501.1000: 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.
3210106/17/08
1945E Journey Charter School * * * VACATED by Journey Charter School (2009) PERB Decision No. 1945a
501.1000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
Contents of a letter to parents did not directly address any issues relating to the teachers’ interests as employees. The teachers did not state how their complaints impacted their working conditions, or how their concerns would advance their interests as employees. Without such evidence, the Board found distribution of the letter was not protected activity. The evidence fails to show how a letter was specifically and directly related to work conditions, treatment of teachers as employees, job cancellation or labor relations problems. As the letter did not state matters of legitimate concern to the employees as employees, the teachers did not engage in activity protected by EERA when they distributed the letter. Three teachers engaged in protected conduct when they sought the assistance of the Association and decided to join the union. The Board found there was insufficient evidence to support an inference that a charter school was unlawfully motivated to discriminate against three teachers because of their participation in protected union organization activities. The decision not to renew three teachers’ contracts followed closely after the teachers’ second meeting with an Association representative in which they voted to become part of the District’s faculty bargaining unit. However, timing alone, without more, does not demonstrate the necessary nexus between the protected act and the adverse action. One of the factors that can be used to establish nexus is employer animosity towards a union activist. A charter school was aware of the teachers’ union organizing effort, but there is no evidence that it ever tried to frustrate, thwart or discourage their attempt. Nexus can be proven by evidence of the employer’s inconsistent or contradictory justifications for its actions. However, the record is devoid of evidence that a charter school’s justification for its action was inconsistent or contradictory. A charter school did not give a clear reason to teachers for its non-renewal of their contracts. Nevertheless, the totality of the circumstances indicated that a charter school did not renew the teachers’ contracts because they distributed a letter. The Board was unable to draw a reasonable inference of unlawful motivation based solely on the proximity of the charter school’s action and its failure to give the teachers a clear justification for their decision. The Board found that a charter school did not to renew teachers’ contracts due to the contents of a letter they distributed rather than the teachers’ attempt at union organization. There was insufficient evidence to show a charter school was unlawfully motivated to discriminate against three teachers because of their expressed intent to form and join a union. Accordingly, the Board concluded the Association did not sustain its burden of proof that the charter school discriminated or retaliated against three teachers for their participation in protected activity. more or view all topics or full text.
324502/28/08
1930E Los Angeles Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
321011/28/07
1924E San Leandro Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
3115010/01/07
1920M Jurupa Community Services District
501.1000: 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.
3113608/10/07
1893E Lodi Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
317603/20/07
1853H Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED by Sonoma County Superior Court (2015) PERB Decision No. 2409-C
501.1000: 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.
3015508/29/06
1880E Oakland Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
314501/11/07
1866H Trustees of the California State University (Humboldt)
501.1000: 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.
312612/14/06
1849M County of Santa Cruz
501.1000: 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.
3015108/16/06
1782C Lake County Superior Court
501.1000: 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.
30711/01/05
1804H Regents of the University of California
501.1000: 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.
304401/04/06
1778E Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
2916710/06/05
1805E Compton Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
305001/05/06
1708M County of Alameda
501.1000: 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.
291211/16/04
1697H Trustees of the California State University
501.1000: 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.
2826409/30/04
1702E Berkeley Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
29511/05/04
1690S State of California (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection)
501.1000: 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.
2825409/17/04
1680S State of California (State Personnel Board)
501.1000: 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.
2822408/20/04
1668E Los Angeles Community College District
501.1000: 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.
2821507/28/04
1671E Fullerton Elementary School District
501.1000: 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.
2821607/28/04
1655M Marin County Law Library
501.1000: 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.
2819507/02/04
1552E Los Angeles Unified School District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495
501.1000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
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.
28710/21/03
1529E Oakland Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
279106/20/03
I055M County of San Joaquin (Health Care Services)
501.1000: 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.
253210909/05/01
1431E Los Angeles Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
253206104/30/01
1418E Peralta Community College District
501.1000: 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.
253203702/26/01
1461E Sacramento City Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
253211109/18/01
1331E Pasadena Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
233011805/13/99
1325E Los Angeles Community College District
501.1000: 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.
233009604/13/99
1323E Ventura County Community College District
501.1000: 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.
233009404/08/99
1303E Coachella Valley Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
233002712/11/98
1283E Los Angeles Community College District (Santoianni)
501.1000: 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.
222915509/15/98
1263H Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees)
501.1000: 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.
222909004/28/98
1255H Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association)
501.1000: 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.
222906603/20/98
1239H Regents of the University of California (Harris)
501.1000: 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.
222902712/04/97
1228E Little Lake School District (Garcia)
501.1000: 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.
222900811/13/97
1229E Sulphur Springs Union Elementary School District (Garcia)
501.1000: 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.
222900911/13/97
1230E Centinela Valley Union High School District (Garcia)
501.1000: 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.
222901011/13/97
1222E Los Angeles Community College District (Mrvichin)
501.1000: 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.
212816210/01/97
1199S California State Employees Association (Carrillo)
501.1000: 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.
212809905/14/97
1192E Los Angeles Unified School District (Summer)
501.1000: 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.
212807204/09/97
1188H Regents of the University of California (University Professional and Technical Employees)
501.1000: 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.
212806703/19/97
1139S State of California (Department of Motor Vehicles) (Petrella)
501.1000: 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.
202704502/21/96
1087H Regents of the University of California (Costa)
501.1000: 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.
192606503/01/95
1059E Centralia School District (Burchell)
501.1000: 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.
182514409/28/94
1052E Scotts Valley Union Elementary School District
501.1000: 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.
182511508/24/94
0963E Apple Valley Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
172402012/07/92
0957E Los Angeles Unified School District (Kaady)
501.1000: 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.
172400011/18/92
0954S State of California (Franchise Tax Board)
501.1000: 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.
162316410/21/92
0885E San Diego Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
152210306/14/91
0879E San Diego Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
152208805/21/91
0872H Regents of the University of California (Einheber)
501.1000: 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.
152206403/21/91
0869H California State University, Hayward (Dees)
501.1000: 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.
152205102/25/91
0864E Newark Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
152202301/14/91
0856E Elk Grove Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
152200912/17/90
0858H Regents of the University of California (Smith)
501.1000: 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.
152201112/17/90
0851E Los Angeles County Office of Education
501.1000: 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.
142121511/14/90
0845H California State University, Fresno
501.1000: 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.
142119310/04/90
0846E United Teachers - Los Angeles (Glickberg)
501.1000: 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.
142120410/30/90
0847E Los Angeles Community College District (Hoodye)
501.1000: 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.
142120510/30/90
0833E Los Rios Community College District
501.1000: 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.
142116008/10/90
0822E Culver City Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
142113406/27/90
0805H Trustees of the California State University (Statewide University Police Association)
501.1000: 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.
142109004/17/90
0764E Cupertino Union School District
501.1000: 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.
132019409/14/89
0748E Los Angeles Community College District
501.1000: 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.
132014506/28/89
0742E Los Gatos-Saratoga School District
501.1000: 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.
132013206/19/89
0719H California State University, (United Professors of California)
501.1000: 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.
132003801/19/89
0701E Campbell Union High School District
501.1000: 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.
121916910/12/88
0689E Palo Verde Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
121912106/30/88
0687E Cottonwood Union High School District
501.1000: 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.
121911506/27/88
0630E Kern County Office of Education
501.1000: 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.
111813307/14/87
0615H Regents of the University of California (Yeary)
501.1000: 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.
111806003/03/87
0607H California State University, Hayward
501.1000: 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.
111802601/02/87
0599E Los Angeles Unified School District and United Teachers Los Angeles (Wadsworth)
501.1000: 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.
111801412/23/86
0584E Anderson Union High School District
501.1000: 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.
101715308/29/86
0590H California State Employees Association (Dees)
501.1000: 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.
101716209/25/86
0592E Riverside Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
101717110/10/86
0571E Riverside Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
101709905/07/86
0572E Cupertino Union Elementary School District
501.1000: 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.
101710005/09/86
0562Ea Riverside Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
101710305/16/86
0559H California State University (San Francisco)
501.1000: 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.
101704301/03/86
0562E Riverside Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
101705001/24/86
0551S State of California (Department of Developmental Services)
501.1000: 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.
101702612/17/85
1953M Carmichael Recreation and Park District * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Contra Costa Community College District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2652
501.1000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
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.
326904/17/08
1946E San Mateo County Office of Education
501.1000: 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.
324802/29/08
1757M County of Colusa
501.1000: 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.
2910103/08/05
1741H Trustees of the California State University
501.1000: 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.
296401/26/05
1748E Alum Rock Union Elementary School District
501.1000: 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.
297302/07/05
0534H Regents of the University of California (Berkeley)
501.1000: 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.
91623911/04/85
0510E Riverside Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
91615606/21/85
0513E Riverside Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
91615906/21/85
0514E Los Angeles Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
91616307/01/85
0516H Regents of the University of California (San Francisco Medical Center)
501.1000: 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.
91618708/07/85
0505E Santa Paula School District
501.1000: 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.
91612805/07/85
0500E Santa Clara Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
91611604/11/85
0492E Sacramento City Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
91609403/06/85
0482E Modesto City Schools and High School District
501.1000: 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.
91606101/16/85
0445E San Francisco Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
91600911/29/84
0448E Los Angeles Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
91601312/03/84
0421E Sacramento City Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
81519710/19/84
0423S State of California (Department of Developmental Services)
501.1000: 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.
81520410/24/84
0425E Los Angeles Unified School District (Wightman)
501.1000: 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.
81520610/26/84
0426E Los Angeles Unified School District (Wightman)
501.1000: 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.
81520710/26/84
0412E Los Angeles Unified School District (Wightman)
501.1000: 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.
81517910/04/84
0401E Inglewood Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
81515408/29/84
0404E Charter Oak Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
81516209/06/84
0394S State of California (Department of Consumer Affairs)
501.1000: 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.
81514308/10/84
0378S State of California (Department of Developmental Services, Napa State Hospital) (Matta)
501.1000: 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.
81503902/15/84
0371E Mammoth Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
81501512/29/83
0368E San Diego Community College District
501.1000: 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.
81500912/22/83
0362H Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association)
501.1000: 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.
81500212/07/83
0328S State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by County of Santa Clara (2017) PERB Decision No. 2539-M
501.1000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
Application of Novato. more or view all topics or full text.
71421107/29/83
0251E Coast Community College District
501.1000: 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.
61323710/15/82
0227E Moreland Elementary School District
501.1000: 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.
61317107/27/82
0211H California State University, Sacramento
501.1000: 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.
61311504/30/82
0210E Novato Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
61311404/30/82
0141E Cerritos Community College District
501.1000: 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.
41118210/14/80
0127S State of California (Department of Corrections) (California Correctional Officers Association)
501.1000: 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.
41107905/05/80
0117E Grossmont Community College District
501.1000: 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.
41104303/19/80
0100E Sacramento City Unified School District
501.1000: 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.
31010908/14/79
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
501.1000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; DISCRIMINATION; In General; Elements of Prima Facie Case
Intent to discriminate required to find a violation of 3543.5(a). more or view all topics or full text.
136909/02/77
0949H Regents of the University of California (Einheber)
501.1000: 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.
162313308/13/92
0913E Monterey County Office of Education
501.1000: 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.
162300912/13/91
0065E Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools
501.1000: 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.
2217108/16/78