All notes for Subtopic 503.01000 – In General
| Decision | Description | PERC Vol. | PERC Index | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2865E | Mt. San Jacinto Community College District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General PERB uses an objective test to determine whether an employer’s action is adverse. (City of San Diego (2020) PERB Decision No. 2747-M, p. 27.) “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.” (Ibid.) Context is highly relevant in determining whether non-punitive directives are adverse. (Ibid.) (p. 24.) more or view all topics or full text. | 48 | 15 | 06/28/23 |
| 2747M | City of San Diego 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General PERB precedent provides that a threat of action and carrying out the action are separate adverse acts. (San Diego Unified School District (2017) PERB Decision No. 2538, pp. 12-13; City of Davis (2016) PERB Decision No. 2494, p. 42; Regents of the University of California (2004) PERB Decision No. 1585-H, pp. 7-8.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2747M | City of San Diego 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General PERB uses an objective test to determine whether an employer’s action is adverse. (City and County of San Francisco (2020) PERB Decision No. 2712-M, p. 19 (San Francisco), citing Chula Vista Elementary School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2586, pp. 24-25 (Chula Vista).) “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.” (San Francisco, at pp. 19-20, citing Chula Vista, at p. 25 (internal citation omitted).) Context is highly relevant in determining whether non-punitive directives are adverse. (San Diego Unified School District (2019) PERB Decision No. 2683, p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 45 | 10/06/20 |
| 2736M | City of Santa Maria 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General An employer’s failure to give the assurances enumerated in Johnnie’s Poultry Company (1964) 146 NLRB 770, enf. den. (8th Cir. 1965) 344 F.2d 617, before interrogating an employee about protected activities is evidence that the interrogation/investigation constituted a retaliatory adverse action. (Pages 29-31.) more or view all topics or full text. | 45 | 17 | 06/30/20 |
| 2671E | Lake Elsinore Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Discriminatory enforcement of a work rule for the purpose of harassing or intimidating an employee in retaliation for having engaged in protected activity constitutes an adverse action. Here, the evidence did not show any discriminatory enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement’s class size provisions against charging party because kindergarten class sizes at the school did not differ by more than three students, consistent with the collective bargaining agreement. (Adopting proposed decision at p. 22.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 72 | 09/27/19 |
| 2712M | City and County of San Francisco 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General PERB uses an objective test to determine whether an employer’s action is adverse. 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. The Office of the General Counsel correctly found that union alleged the employer took adverse actions against employee by not promoting her to an open, more highly paid position, and by issuing her a notice of intent to suspend. In addition, PERB found that union alleged the following adverse actions: (1) failing to encourage employee to take the promotional exam while encouraging her counterparts to do so; (2) failing to notify employee how she could be accommodated to interview for an open position during a period when she would be out on disability; and (3) delaying meeting with employee and declining to provide timely and accurate information concerning the recruitment. A reasonable person in the employee’s circumstances would view such alleged actions as adverse to her employment for multiple reasons, including because they impeded her efforts to progress in her career and suggested any effort on her part to apply for one of the promotional positions would be disfavored. (pp. 19-20.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 173 | 05/06/20 |
| 2634E | San Diego Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General In determining whether an employer’s action is adverse, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. (Chula Vista Elementary School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2586, pp. 24-25.) “The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee found the employer’s action to be adverse, but whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment.” (Id. at p. 25, quoting Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 864, pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 156 | 03/22/19 |
| 2687H | Trustees of the California State University (Northridge) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General In determining whether an employer’s action is adverse, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon subjective reactions of the employee. [Citation.] “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.” [Citation.] (Adopting proposed decision at pp. 30-31.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 109 | 12/13/19 |
| 2654E | Claremont Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General The Board uses an objective standard to determine whether an employer’s action is adverse and will not rely on either the employee’s subjective reaction or the employer’s intent. (pp. 14, 15.) The test is whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment. (p. 14.) more or view all topics or full text. | 44 | 24 | 07/10/19 |
| 2642M | City of Sacramento 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General In determining whether an employer’s action is adverse, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. (Chula Vista Elementary School District (2018) PERB Decision No. 2586, pp. 24-25.) “The test which must be satisfied is not whether the employee found the employer’s action to be adverse, but whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment.” (Id. at p. 25, quoting Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 864, pp. 11-12.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 179 | 05/01/19 |
| 2642M | City of Sacramento 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General An employer action can constitute adverse action absent discipline and even absent any threat of discipline. (See, e.g., County of Riverside (2009) PERB Decision No. 2090-M, pp. 28, 30 [action need not specifically threaten discipline if it otherwise has an adverse impact on the employee’s employment]; State of California (Department of Youth Authority) (2000) PERB Decision No. 1403-S, pp. 32-33 [adverse action found where employer demeaned employee by issuing a substandard rating for “relationships with people,” and by imposing a documented requirement that a fellow employee had to review budget requests].) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 179 | 05/01/19 |
| 2586E | Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General 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. The reasonable person test applies when the employer’s alleged adverse action is a threat. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E | Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Where the employer’s investigation notice stated the employee inappropriately used the employer’s email system to share derogatory information, a reasonable person may conclude from such notice that misconduct had already been found and discipline was forthcoming. In this case, such notice of an impending investigation is sufficiently unequivocal about future discipline to constitute an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2586E | Chula Vista Elementary School District (Yvellez) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General An investigation into alleged employee misconduct may constitute an adverse action against the investigated employee, regardless of whether disciplinary action ultimately results. Thus, an investigatory interview, occurring after the employer unequivocally accused the employee of misconduct and after the employer notified the employee it was considering imposing discipline, was an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 60 | 09/28/18 |
| 2631E | Antelope Valley Union High School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General 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. “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.” (pp. 8-9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 148 | 03/05/19 |
| 2631E | Antelope Valley Union High School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General A charging party need not prove a loss of compensation to show that an action was objectively adverse. (p. 9.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 148 | 03/05/19 |
| 2631E | Antelope Valley Union High School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Using an objective test, a reasonable person might perceive an employee’s revised schedule—in which the employer removed all classes of a particular subject matter—to be less prestigious, to be a step down on the career ladder, or to feature lesser working conditions, even if the employee did not lose compensation as a result of the change. (pp. 9-10.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 148 | 03/05/19 |
| 2605E | Mount San Jacinto Community College District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General 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 (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 of the employee’s employment.” (Id. at p. 25, quoting Newark Unified School District (1991) PERB Decision No. 864, pp. 11-12.) The reasonable person test guides us equally when the employer’s alleged adverse action is a warning of a possible future action. (Chula Vista, supra, at p. 25.) (pp. 17-18.) more or view all topics or full text. | 43 | 92 | 12/12/18 |
| 2538E | San Diego Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Our cases concerning adverse action, beginning with Palo Verde Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 689, emphasize an objective test in determining whether a particular action was adverse to employment interests, i.e., whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the person’s employment. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 41 | 09/07/17 |
| 2538E | San Diego Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General A threatened adverse action is a separate potential unfair practice from the completed action. For a threat to be actionable as an adverse action, it must give the employee unequivocal notice that the employer has made a firm decision to take the threatened action. more or view all topics or full text. | 42 | 41 | 09/07/17 |
| 2493H | Regents of the University of California (Irvine) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Employer removed an employee from clinical duties and required temporary remedial training. Not only would a reasonable person consider these changes to have an adverse impact on working conditions, such action can be considered akin to receiving a poor evaluation, which the Board has long held to constitute an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 41 | 32 | 06/30/16 |
| 2453E | Cabrillo Community College District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General To the extent that the Office of the General Counsel determined that the withdrawal of tentatively scheduled employment and all future employment is an adverse action, we concur. Placing charging party on involuntary paid leave is an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 57 | 09/17/15 |
| 2459E | Claremont Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Continuation of administrative leave not adverse action where there was no explicit or implicit understanding as to if or when charging party would return to active status. more or view all topics or full text. | 40 | 88 | 10/27/15 |
| 2309E | Jurupa Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General A reasonable person would consider a notice sent by a school district notifying him or her that they have been terminated to be an adverse action, when in fact, they remained District employees on a 39-month re-employment list pursuant to Education Code section 44978.1. more or view all topics or full text. | 37 | 183 | 03/08/13 |
| 2381E | Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General An employer giving an employee notice of the intent to terminate or discipline (viz., a threat of termination or discipline) for an unlawful reason would also violate employees’ statutory protections and thus by itself constitute an unfair practice. Where a charging party challenges as unlawful under our statutes an employer’s notice of intent to terminate or discipline, and thereafter, upon completion of the dismissal proceedings terminates or disciplines the employee, a timely filed charge, alleging that the notice of termination or discipline either was unlawfully motivated or interfered with the exercise of employee rights, will be deemed sufficient notice to the employer that the notice of termination or discipline, and any action taken thereafter by the employer based on that notice, are subject to review by this Board. A responding party is not prejudiced by having to defend against the allegation that a notice of dismissal or discipline (viz., the threat to dismiss or discipline) and an actual imposition of dismissal or discipline are related violations. The second action, imposition, is but the implementation of the first. District’s directive that charging party not contact employees who wished not to have such contact is not an adverse action, since no employee was obliged to assist charging party with his defense, and charging party could compel testimony even from recalcitrant employee witnesses by subpoena. Although a directive that an employee not contact other employees may conceivably interfere with employee rights explicitly protected by EERA to “form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation” (EERA, § 3543(a)) or rights arguably protected under EERA for mutual aid and protection, charging party has failed to allege a prima facie case for interference under EERA. To establish a prima facie case of interference, a charging party must allege that the employer’s conduct does or tends to result in some harm to employee EERA rights. Requiring employees to meet the requirements of their profession is not an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 39 | 12 | 06/27/14 |
| 2219E | Los Angeles Community College District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Employee failed to prove that office relocation constituted an adverse action, where there was no objective evidence that a reasonable person would find it to be a bad place to work. Employee’s subjective feelings of loneliness, isolation and punishment did not meet objective reasonableness standard. more or view all topics or full text. | 36 | 82 | 11/15/11 |
| 2174M | County of Contra Costa 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Elimination of all part-time public health nurse positions and decision to layoff employee holding that position is an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 67 | 03/25/11 |
| 2106Sa | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Los Angeles County Superior Court (2018) PERB Decision No. 2566-C, where the Board clarified that under Campbell Municipal Employees Association v. City of Campbell (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 416, a charging party may establish “discrimination in its simplest form” via evidence of “employer conduct that is facially or inherently discriminatory, such that the employer’s unlawful motive can be inferred without specific evidence.” In the absence of evidence sufficient to trigger the Campbell standard, PERB applies the Novato analysis of nexus factors.* * *In determining whether an action is adverse to an individual employee under Novato Unified School District (1982) PERB Decision No. 210, the Board applies the standard set forth in Palo Verde Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 689, which requires an objective showing of an adverse effect on the employee’s employment. The discrimination standard in Campbell Municipal Employees Assn. v. City of Campbell (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 416, which applies when the employer is alleged to have discriminated between two groups of employees because one of the groups participated in protected activity, cannot be used to establish adverse action under the Novato standard. The Board overruled that part of City of San Diego (2005) PERB Decision No. 1738-M, in which the Board used Campbell to establish adverse action against an individual employee. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 59 | 03/01/11 |
| 2167M | Antelope Valley Hospital District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Nothing contained in the MMBA requires that public employers provide grievants with a mediator or utilize a mediator as part of a grievance procedure. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 47 | 02/25/11 |
| 2156S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Corcoran State Prison) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Charge failed to state a prima facie case of bypass because it did not allege facts establishing that actual or attempted negotiations occurred during a meeting between union representatives and management which the local chapter president did not attend. more or view all topics or full text. | 35 | 26 | 01/19/11 |
| 2140H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General The employer’s transfer of work from charging parties to other employees did not constitute adverse action when the charge failed to allege facts showing that the charging parties suffered reduced hours or loss of pay or overtime opportunities as a result. A supervisor’s critical comments about an employee’s work performance did not constitute adverse action when they were not a reprimand and did not lead to discipline. Employer’s settlement of grievances without the grievant’s consent did not constitute adverse action absent allegations that the settlement had a negative impact on the grievant’s terms and conditions of employment. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 165 | 11/02/10 |
| 2129E | Sacramento City Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Removal of substitute teacher’s name from the school district’s active substitute list was an adverse action because it effectively terminated the teacher’s employment with the district. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 134 | 09/03/10 |
| 2122M | County of Tehama 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General An employer’s action is adverse if a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment. The action, however, must involve actual and not merely speculative harm. Thus, an adverse action will not be found in situations involving a future adverse impact on employment conditions when such impact is speculative. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 111 | 06/28/10 |
| 2123S | State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General The imposition of furloughs was a form of involuntary leave resulting in a reduction in hours and therefore an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 117 | 07/28/10 |
| 2124E | Los Angeles Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Evidence of adverse action is required to support a claim of discrimination or reprisal. In determining whether such evidence is established, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 118 | 08/04/10 |
| 2118S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General An overall positive performance evaluation that contains some written comments and constructive criticism does not transform an otherwise positive evaluation into an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 102 | 06/15/10 |
| 2118S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General A referral to an EAP program does not constitute adverse action when participation in the program is voluntary and all services provided are confidential. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 102 | 06/15/10 |
| 2090M | County of Riverside * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Walnut Valley Unified School District (2016) PERB Decision No. 2495. * * *The test for adverse action is not whether the action would reasonably lead an employee to fear for his job, but whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment. more or view all topics or full text. | 34 | 45 | 12/31/09 |
| 2024S | State of California (Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Evidence of adverse action is also required to support a claim of discrimination or reprisal. In determining whether such evidence is established, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 86 | 05/13/09 |
| 2072S | State of California (Department of Social Services) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Two draft memoranda setting forth employer’s expectations did not constitute adverse action, where memoranda were never issued to employee or placed in employee’s personnel file. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 177 | 10/27/09 |
| 2070H | Trustees of the California State University (San Marcos) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Search of employee’s personal vehicle by employer’s security officer was an adverse action because it could lead to discipline, criminal charges, or both. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 173 | 10/15/09 |
| 2071M | County of San Bernardino (County Library) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Employer’s failure to provide employee with written rejection or examination results was not an adverse action because the charge failed to establish that the employee could not appeal the rejection without the documents. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 176 | 10/20/09 |
| 2066M | Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Placement of employee on paid administrative leave was not an adverse action when the employee was on unpaid leave status at the time she was placed on paid leave. Termination of employment and health benefits were not adverse actions because they were taken pursuant to a signed settlement agreement between the employee and the employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 165 | 09/29/09 |
| 2065M | County of Riverside 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Reclassification of employee’s position was not an adverse action because employee’s pay and job duties remained the same after reclassification. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 162 | 09/25/09 |
| 2057E | San Francisco Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Charging party failed to establish that vague statements in emails referring to a union member as a “bully” had an adverse impact on employee’s employment. In the absence of facts showing impact on employment, bare allegation that the employer made disparaging remarks about an employee does not meet the standard under Novato and Palo Verde. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 145 | 08/28/09 |
| 2022M | City of Modesto 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Alleged failure to complete an investigation of employee’s complaint did not constitute an adverse action, where employee refused to discuss or provide information concerning the complaint without representation. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 84 | 05/12/09 |
| 2038H | Trustees of the California State University * * * OVERRULED IN PART by Visalia Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2806 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General * * * OVERRULED IN PART ON OTHER GROUNDS by Visalia Unified School District (2022) PERB Decision No. 2806. * * *Threat to reassign employee from position requiring use of independent judgment to position doing basic clerical work constituted adverse action. Withdrawal of reclassified position not adverse when employee was not qualified for position. Denial of employee’s request to work full-time hours not adverse when employee was unable to work full-time hours. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 106 | 06/11/09 |
| 2021E | Alvord Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Where compensation and the number of classes taught remained the same, a change in a teacher’s class schedule and/or the failure of the District to provide teaching resources, is not sufficient to establish adverse action for the purpose of supporting a prima facie case for reprisal. Charging Party must provide facts showing that a reasonable person would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 76 | 04/30/09 |
| 2005M | County of San Diego 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Employer sent a letter to the union president canceling future labor/management meetings because of the conduct of employee/union steward at a prior meeting. The letter was not an adverse action against the employee because any future adverse impact on his employment conditions was speculative. more or view all topics or full text. | 33 | 47 | 02/27/09 |
| 1980E | San Mateo County Community College District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Employer took adverse action by placing employee on involuntary paid administrative leave, sending employee to a fitness for duty evaluation, and canceling employee’s teaching assignment. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 153 | 10/17/08 |
| 1975M | County of Merced 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Unequivocal notice of the employer’s intent to impose discipline is an adverse action. Letter to employee stating that he was absent without leave and would be terminated unless he returned to work by a specific date was not adverse action because it did not indicate the employer had made a firm decision to terminate the employee. Notice for employee to vacate employer-provided residence was adverse action because it unequivocally stated employer’s intent to eliminate a term or condition of employment. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 137 | 09/05/08 |
| 1971M | City of Torrance 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Employer’s order that union president take only three days of release time per week was not adverse action because employer was merely enforcing the MOU. Employer’s demand for reimbursement of release time in excess of three days per week, threat to discipline union president for unauthorized use of release time and investigation into union president’s use of release time were adverse actions. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 126 | 08/21/08 |
| 1930E | Los Angeles Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General The central question before the Board was whether a teacher’s conference memorandum, another memorandum, a notice of unsatisfactory acts and a notice of suspension were adverse actions by the school district because of a teacher’s protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 10 | 11/28/07 |
| 1920M | Jurupa Community Services District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 31 | 136 | 08/10/07 |
| 1849M | County of Santa Cruz 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Charging party did not demonstrate that County took adverse against employee, as she was not reprimanded or disciplined. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 151 | 08/16/06 |
| 1851H | Regents of the University of California 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Argument could be made that counseling memos are not an adverse action where counseling memos are not considered discipline under the parties collective bargaining agreement. Even assuming the counseling memo was an adverse action, the charge failed to demonstrate nexus. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 153 | 08/21/06 |
| 1804H | Regents of the University of California 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Evidence of adverse action is also required to support a claim of discrimination or reprisal. In determining whether such evidence is established, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely upon the subjective reactions of the employee. 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. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 44 | 01/04/06 |
| 1791E | Los Angeles Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General The request to bring the log book to a meeting and the requirement to stay in the electrical shop are not adverse actions from the perspective of a reasonable person under the same circumstances and so Kahn did not state a prima facie case for discrimination. Kahn’s situation is distinguishable from Compton Unified School District (2003) PERB Decision No. 1518 (Compton) since unlike this case, the employee in Compton was removed from a prestigious position, and his pay and position were impacted by the employer’s conduct. This confirms that the District’s conduct was not an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 30 | 32 | 12/29/05 |
| 1664M | City and County of San Francisco 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General The charge did not allege sufficient information to show that the City’s conduct of involuntary transfer, failure to invite to meetings, order to cease outside correspondence, and order to provide schedule, comprises adverse action since it must involve actual and not merely speculative harm. The inquiry is whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee’s employment. more or view all topics or full text. | 28 | 231 | 07/27/04 |
| 1714E | Simi Valley Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General The District imposed adverse action on the teacher through the principal’s silent, frequent and unannounced visits to the teacher’s classroom, which culminated in a memo imposing 26 hours of observations in a 2 month period. The teacher’s experience with these visits was significantly different in number, frequency and tenor than those of other teachers at the school. more or view all topics or full text. | 29 | 19 | 11/29/04 |
| 1522E | Sonoma Valley Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General To establish an adverse action, the test that 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 impact on the employee’s employment. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 72 | 05/13/03 |
| 1539M | City of Folsom 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Siroky did not allege that a proposed settlement agreement which precluded the City from recovering an attorneys’ fee award against him, was executed by the parties. Therefore, City’s attempt to recover the fee award is not an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 99 | 06/26/03 |
| 1529E | Oakland Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Involuntary administrative leave is a form of adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 91 | 06/20/03 |
| 1518E | Compton Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Loss of pay or benefits are not sole factors in determining whether employee has suffered an adverse action. Employee’s removal from school leadership team was an adverse action where service on the team was considered prestigious and reasonable people would consider the removal to have an adverse impact on the employee’s career. more or view all topics or full text. | 27 | 56 | 04/18/03 |
| 1489E | Golden Plains Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General The District’s notice to Ramirez of non-reelection to teach the following school year alleges the adverse action element of a prima facie case of discrimination. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33098 | 07/08/02 |
| 1442E | Fremont Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General No prima facie case of interference or retaliation where charge contains only limited evidence of what could be construed as harassment. Allegation of "threatened board action" concerning the failing grade given to a cheating student failed to provide a "clear and concise statement of the facts and conduct alleged to constitute an unfair practice as required by PERB Regulation 32615 (a) in order to permit PERB to determine whether a prima facie case has been stated. Allegations of "procedural hurdles" encountered before having grievances heard insufficient to establish prima facie case of interference or retaliation where alleged harm is principally delay and not the inability to obtain a forum for her claims. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32082 | 06/07/01 |
| 1480S | State of California (Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General No prima facie case of employer discrimination shown where charging party failed to allege that named individuals had hiring authority or that he was subjected to adverse action attributable to the employer. more or view all topics or full text. | 26 | 33063 | 05/02/02 |
| 1459S | State of California 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Defending a lawsuit, pointing out defects in the suit and that losing party may be subject to attorney’s fees is not an adverse action; p. 6. more or view all topics or full text. | 25 | 32108 | 08/29/01 |
| 1357S | State of California (Department of Health Services) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Notice that employer would be seeking an adverse action against an employee is not an adverse action; p. 2, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 24 | 31001 | 10/18/99 |
| 1329S | State of California (Department of Corrections) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Although the State refused to provide specific criteria for a determination of "sick leave abuse" and "above average use" of sick leave, the parties' MOU does not require the State to define those terms further; thus, its failure to further define them is not an adverse action. The State's commending of employees for their more prudent use of sick leave is not an adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30116 | 05/03/99 |
| 1303E | Coachella Valley Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General The employer had no duty to arbitrate the grievance as the employer's actions occurred after the expiration of the contract, the conduct did not infringe on vested rights under the agreement and the agreement has no separate authority that under normal principals of contract interpretation, require the continuation of the contract provision, citing State of California, Department of Youth Authority PERB Decision No. 962; p. 4, dismissal letter; p. 6, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30027 | 12/11/98 |
| 1298E | Mountain Empire Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Where employer offers employee choice between two objectively adverse transfers, employer has taken adverse action against employee; p. 29, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 23 | 30011 | 10/30/98 |
| 1255H | Regents of the University of California (California Nurses Association) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Letter of reprimand is adverse action constitutes adverse action for purposes of reprisal allegation; p. 48, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29066 | 03/20/98 |
| 1248E | Alisal Union Elementary School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Disciplinary memorandum placed in employee's personnel file constitutes adverse action for purposes of the EERA; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29049 | 01/28/98 |
| 1246E | Oakdale Union Elementary School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Letter of reprimand constitutes adverse action; p. 17. more or view all topics or full text. | 22 | 29047 | 01/28/98 |
| 1202S | State of California (State Teachers Retirement System (Ramirez and Roberts) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General To establish a prima facie discrimination violation, the Charging Party must show how the action adversely affected the employee's employment under an objective standard allowing coworker to swear at discriminatee insufficient; p. 2, dismissal letter; p. 5, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 21 | 28109 | 06/04/97 |
| 1048E | Los Rios Community College District (Deglow) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Adverse action is required to support a claim of discrimination or reprisal under the Novato standard. In determining whether an adverse action occurred, the Board uses an objective test and will not rely on the subjective reactions of the employee; p. 3, warning letter. The employer's disparaging remarks about the charging party in the presence of another employee is not an adverse action; p. 3, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25098 | 06/01/94 |
| 1031S | State of California (Department of Parks and Recreation) (Kalko) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General No adverse action because charge did not allege facts establishing how (using an objective test) the employer's disclosing information from a grievance to the grievant's co-workers caused harm or had "impact on the employee's employment;" pp. 3-4, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25028 | 01/04/94 |
| 1032S | California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General The union's filing of a citizen's complaint against a unit member prompting an investigation by the employer could cause a reasonable person to be concerned about the potential adverse effect of the complaint and ensuing investigation on his employment. The fact that the complaint and investigation did not result in action being taken against the unit member by his employer does not eliminate the adverse nature of the union's conduct; p. 12. more or view all topics or full text. | 18 | 25029 | 01/06/94 |
| 0954S | State of California (Franchise Tax Board) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Source of information that employer has discriminated against or interfered with a employee's exercise of protected activity deemed irrelevant to the determination of harm. more or view all topics or full text. | 16 | 23164 | 10/21/92 |
| 0879E | San Diego Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Fact finder's decision that was "negligently" decided, and an increase in his stipend is not an adverse action; p. 3, dismissal letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22088 | 05/21/91 |
| 0869H | California State University, Hayward (Dees) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Under Palo Verde Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 689, Board applied an objective test in determining whether action taken by the employer actually resulted in harm to subject employee; p. 20, proposed dec. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22051 | 02/25/91 |
| 0864E | Newark Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Under Palo Verde Unified School District (1988) PERB Decision No. 689, Board applied an objective test in determining whether action taken by the employer actually resulted in harm to subject employee; test is not whether employee found employer action undesirable, but whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would consider the action to have an adverse impact on the employee's employment; p. 11. Adverse action is not limited to formal disciplinary actions such as those enumerated in Gov. Code 19570. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22023 | 01/14/91 |
| 0858H | Regents of the University of California (Smith) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Charging party alleged no facts to show that the employer's conduct was intended to be retaliatory; p. 2, warning letter. more or view all topics or full text. | 15 | 22011 | 12/17/90 |
| 0822E | Culver City Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Palo Verde test (PERB Decision No. 689) is to be applied as an objective test. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21134 | 06/27/90 |
| 0808Ea | Woodland Joint Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Whether conduct constitutes adverse action is determined by objective standard, therefore, employee's perceptions are irrelevant; p. 5. more or view all topics or full text. | 14 | 21163 | 08/17/90 |
| 0689E | Palo Verde Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Objective test applied to determine whether District's action resulted in an injury to the employee. more or view all topics or full text. | 12 | 19121 | 06/30/88 |
| 1946E | San Mateo County Office of Education 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General The central dispute surrounds whether or not the charging party alleged sufficient facts to support the allegation that his employer’s reprimand was issued because of his protected conduct and thereby retaliation. Although the charging party established that his reprimand was issued close in time to his protected activity, he failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate other evidence of a nexus between his protected activity and the reprimand. The Board rejected an argument for disparate treatment when the charging party failed to present evidence about similarly situated employees. Charging party and another employee were not similarly situated employees as the other employee’s situation involved a grievance about rude behavior via a process that had not concluded, and the charging party’s situation involved discipline for behavior which was determined to have occurred. more or view all topics or full text. | 32 | 48 | 02/29/08 |
| 0510E | Riverside Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General No prima facie showing where conduct alleged does not state adverse action (placing CSEA letter in personnel file and reassigning employee). more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16156 | 06/21/85 |
| 0448E | Los Angeles Unified School District 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Allegation that a public school employer abused employees and denied charging party his constitutional rights fails to set out prima facie case of discrimination. Allegation that employer engaged in delays in processing grievance fails to allege that charging party was harmed. R.A. dismissal upheld. more or view all topics or full text. | 9 | 16013 | 12/03/84 |
| 0425E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Wightman) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Writing a name illegibly, fraudulent letter delivery, impersonation of a mailman are not adverse action. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15206 | 10/26/84 |
| 0426E | Los Angeles Unified School District (Wightman) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General No allegation of harm cognizable under the statute. Allegation that superintendent is incompetent is not potential violation of statute. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15207 | 10/26/84 |
| 0403H | Regents of the University of California (California State Employees Association) 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Removal of employee's flexible work schedule is adverse action as change in work schedule detrimentally affected employee; p. 8. more or view all topics or full text. | 8 | 15161 | 09/06/84 |
| 0291E | Modesto City Schools 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Employer does not violate the Act by disciplining employees for participation in unprotected conduct unless discipline is motivated by anti-union animus; p. 15. more or view all topics or full text. | 7 | 14090 | 03/08/83 |
| 0231H | California State University, Hayward 503.01000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; ADVERSE ACTIONS; In General Installation of time clocks was an adverse action in retaliation for protected activity. more or view all topics or full text. | 6 | 13185 | 08/10/82 |