All notes for Subtopic 504.13000 – Unusually Harsh Treatment
|Decision||Description||PERC Vol.||PERC Index||Date|
|2865E|| Mt. San Jacinto Community College District|
504.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Unusually Harsh TreatmentRemoving two employees as department chairs for missing a single, hastily-scheduled meeting without asking them their availability reflects a disproportionate response to the circumstances, which supports unlawful motive. (p. 32.) more or view all topics or full text.
|2806E|| * * * JUDICIAL APPEAL PENDING * * * Visalia Unified School District|
504.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Unusually Harsh TreatmentThe District’s failure to seriously explore any intermediate discipline for employee who engaged in protected activities, consistent with its standard approach to correcting performance deficiencies, was significant evidence of improper motive. (pp. 31-32) more or view all topics or full text.
|2804E|| South Orange County Community College District|
504.13000: EMPLOYER DISCRIMINATION; EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL MOTIVATION; NEXUS; Unusually Harsh TreatmentThe Board held that the allegation that Charging Party did not receive progressive discipline before being terminated implicates the disproportionate punishment nexus factor. In considering whether the punishment appears disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, PERB does not determine whether the employer had just cause to impose the particular punishment. Rather, the inquiry is whether the employer’s choice to impose the particular punishment instead of a lesser punishment indicates a retaliatory motive. Thus, in certain contexts, an employer’s decision to terminate an employee rather than pursue progressive discipline may indicate the employer wished to rid itself of a known union supporter. In such cases, the decision to terminate often is intertwined with an inadequate investigation of the employee’s alleged misconduct. (p. 14.)The Board noted that despite the Skelly officer dismissing two-thirds of the charges against Charging Party, the school district did not reduce the proposed discipline but instead proceeded to terminate Charging Party based on the remaining 11 charges. Although we cannot say based upon the allegations in the amended charge that termination was a disproportionate punishment for the remaining 11 charges, the school district’s persistence in terminating Charging Party’s employment despite the weakness of a large portion of its charges suggests that termination was a predetermined outcome to rid the school district of a known union activist. The Board found that this was another instance of inadequate investigation and disproportionate punishment nexus factors. (p. 16.) more or view all topics or full text.
|2309E|| Jurupa Unified School District||37||183||03/08/13|
|1032S|| California Union of Safety Employees (Coelho)||18||25029||01/06/94|
|0622E|| Riverside Unified School District||11||18107||06/11/87|
|0505E|| Santa Paula School District||9||16128||05/07/85|
|0378S|| State of California (Department of Developmental Services, Napa State Hospital) (Matta)||8||15039||02/15/84|
|0261E|| San Joaquin Delta Community College District||7||14011||11/30/82|